Rule of Thirds?

Steve wrote

And there are loads of other rules - 'always have someone wearing
red in your landscapes', [...]

I'm just trying to explain that imposing rigid rules on
photographs doesn't necessarily improve the results - it's what
the pictures *shows* that matters.

Having learned about the Golden Section, I might try to use that for
taking photos. But if it means I won't have the time to get the photo
of my daughter balancing on a bike, then forget the Section: The
moment is golden enough as it is.

The rules are for those who want to get help. Another way to get
better might be to look at a load of pictures taken by other people.
To each his own. Personally I like to do a bit of both. I think that
a good deal of the rules of thumb will be a benefit to my pictures.

Toke:
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.

Wrong, because any rule of thumb is, by definition, approximate.

And as such it makes sense to talk about what approximation works
best for most cases.

By deciding between 33% and 38% you are trying to introduce
precision into a subject where such precision is irrelevant.

By talking about any guidelines at all, we're trying to introduce
something measurable to a field that can't be measured. One could
argue that it doesn't makes sense to do so, and they might be right.

I bet I could show you a number of images, some shot according to
the thirds rule, others according to the Golden Section and you
wouldn't be able to say which is which without taking a ruler to
them.

I'm sure you're right.

I also bet that I could show you a circle and give you its
circumference based on both 3.14 and 3.14159 and that you wouldn't be
able to tell the difference.

Not to make the argument that composition is as exact as mathematics,
but your challenge doesn't show anything else than that I'm not very
good at judging such things with my eyes.


Now, to stay on that train of thought, one very boring way to
determine such things might be to crop 10 images to both the Rule of
Thirds and the Golden Rule, then asking 1000 people which ones they
prefered. That would fit fine to how the rules were established,
which is what the majority found pleasing to the eye (or something
along those lines).

The winner from that contest would be the rule that generally works
better than the other rule.

Assuming a well enough sample of images in the test and a lot of
other very boring stuff that needs to be taken in account on such
statistical surveys.

And what would be the point of that?

It means little to me as a an taking-photos-of-his-family-and-his-
cat-but-willing-to-learn photographer. I'm considering applying some
clear tape to the LCD of my digital camera as a little guiding for
learning, but that's about it.

I'll probaly use the Golden Section, as that is the one I find the
most elegant from the viewpoint of mathematics. It's also the one
I've been taught in school, so it's natural to stick to it.

I originally raised the point because I'm developing a program for
cropping. I was under the assumption that it was possible to
determine which rule was generally best, but I've come to the
conclusion that it does not really matter for that program: If I
choose the Golden Section, then americans (and probably a lot of
other people) would complain about the lack of Rules of Third. If I
choose the Rule of Thirds, then danes (and probably a lot of other
people) would complain about the lack of the golden Section.

Even if I could point to a paper that says "Statistically rule X
works better than rule Y", it wouldn't matter as most people would
still prefer to use what they've known and maybe used for the
longest. So I have to provide both.

The rule of thirds, for instance, does NOT say "put the subject
*exactly* 33.3% into the frame". Neither system is right or wrong,
and nobody will be able to tell which one you've used.

On an individual basis, no. By survey, maybe.

If it really bothers you, use 35.5%.

Og 40%? Or 10%?

It only makes sense to take the mean if the Rule of Thirds are
thought by a substantial amount of people to be a better alternative
to the Golden section. Not just because it's easier to use, but
because they think that it gives more pleasing pictures.

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:48:12 +0000 (UTC), Toke Eskildsen wrote:
[lots of stuff snipped]

Well, I give up. If you really feel you can't take pictures without the
crutch of arbitrary rules and the pointless imposition of pseudo-precision,
then good luck to you - but you might want to think about a different
hobby. Putting a guide on a focusing screen is silliness in the extreme.
Like I said, rules of thumb are approximate, so if you do feel you need to
be bound by these rules, then "roughly a third" is all you need (and either
set of rules equates to roughly a third). If you can't judge "roughly a
third" by eye, then you definitely need to take up another hobby.

Steve wrote

Well, I give up. If you really feel you can't take pictures
without the crutch of arbitrary rules

I don't and I haven't stated that anywhere.

and the pointless imposition of pseudo-precision, [...]

I'm didn't ask how to use the rules, but what rule to choose.

You don't seem to grasp the difference and you conveniently snipped the
part where I explained it. I won't repeat myself.

- but you might want to think about a different hobby. Putting a
guide on a focusing screen is silliness in the extreme.

"No trainers wheels on the childs bike! If he needs them, he shouldn't
try to ride a bike at all."

Like I said, rules of thumb are approximate, so if you do feel you
need to be bound by these rules, then "roughly a third" is all you
need (and either set of rules equates to roughly a third).

That's what I wrote two posts ago.

If you can't judge "roughly a third" by eye, then you definitely
need to take up another hobby.

"The child has a bad balance, he probably shouldn't try to learn to
ride a bike".


That's not what you said? Well, join the club of misunderstood people.
I've been a member for a while.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:56:23 +0000 (UTC), Toke Eskildsen wrote:

I'm didn't ask how to use the rules, but what rule to choose.

You're still missing the point. If you need such rules you will never make
a decent photographer.

- but you might want to think about a different hobby. Putting a
guide on a focusing screen is silliness in the extreme.

"No trainers wheels on the childs bike! If he needs them, he shouldn't
try to ride a bike at all."

Worthless analogy.

Like I said, rules of thumb are approximate, so if you do feel you
need to be bound by these rules, then "roughly a third" is all you
need (and either set of rules equates to roughly a third).

That's what I wrote two posts ago.

And yet you still worry about the difference between 33% and 38% - talk
about missing the point. If you accept that a rough estimation is all that
counts, then the whole problem of your original post disappears. You don't
have to choose between the thirds rule or the Golden Section (which,
incidentally, was developed in Ancient Greece for *architecture*) because
those are more specific than you need.

If you can't judge "roughly a third" by eye, then you definitely
need to take up another hobby.

"The child has a bad balance, he probably shouldn't try to learn to
ride a bike".

Still worthless. And are you seriously saying that you can't judge roughly
a third of a distance by eye? That's an astonishing impediment. If so, I
doubt you'll ever have an eye for composition.

Instead of worrying about the meaningless distinction between 33% and 38%,
go and study some photos, go and take some photos and try to develop an
instinct for composition - because if you can't do this instinctively, you
are wasting your time. Having a guide on your focusing screen will not help
you produce better pictures - you'll simply produce more predictable
pictures to a rigid formula and will be tempted to use these rules
regardless of the picture content. Bear in mind that, while there are
plenty of people who need such guidelines, this is usually because they
lack talent. Sticking to 'rules' doesn't help you develop talent, it acts
as a barrier to developing whatever intrinsic understanding you might have
about what makes the picture right (and that means right for you).

If you have ambitions towards being a good photographer, ignore these
'rules', because they're not rules at all and will only serve to make your
pictures banal and uninterestingly uniform. And like I said, they will also
lead you into imposing an inappropriate structure on many pictures. If you
have no such ambitions, then why bother with the rules anyway?

Oh for GOD'S sake.....PUT A CORK IN IT!! Enough is enough. I doubt either
of you are destine for a Pulitzer anyway.

If all you want to do is argue, exchange phone numbers and hash it out in
private.

RM

in article , Steve at
wrote on 11/27/03 5:36 AM:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:56:23 +0000 (UTC), Toke Eskildsen wrote:

I'm didn't ask how to use the rules, but what rule to choose.

You're still missing the point. If you need such rules you will never make
a decent photographer.

- but you might want to think about a different hobby. Putting a
guide on a focusing screen is silliness in the extreme.

"No trainers wheels on the childs bike! If he needs them, he shouldn't
try to ride a bike at all."

Worthless analogy.

Like I said, rules of thumb are approximate, so if you do feel you
need to be bound by these rules, then "roughly a third" is all you
need (and either set of rules equates to roughly a third).

That's what I wrote two posts ago.

And yet you still worry about the difference between 33% and 38% - talk
about missing the point. If you accept that a rough estimation is all that
counts, then the whole problem of your original post disappears. You don't
have to choose between the thirds rule or the Golden Section (which,
incidentally, was developed in Ancient Greece for *architecture*) because
those are more specific than you need.

If you can't judge "roughly a third" by eye, then you definitely
need to take up another hobby.

"The child has a bad balance, he probably shouldn't try to learn to
ride a bike".

Still worthless. And are you seriously saying that you can't judge roughly
a third of a distance by eye? That's an astonishing impediment. If so, I
doubt you'll ever have an eye for composition.

Instead of worrying about the meaningless distinction between 33% and 38%,
go and study some photos, go and take some photos and try to develop an
instinct for composition - because if you can't do this instinctively, you
are wasting your time. Having a guide on your focusing screen will not help
you produce better pictures - you'll simply produce more predictable
pictures to a rigid formula and will be tempted to use these rules
regardless of the picture content. Bear in mind that, while there are
plenty of people who need such guidelines, this is usually because they
lack talent. Sticking to 'rules' doesn't help you develop talent, it acts
as a barrier to developing whatever intrinsic understanding you might have
about what makes the picture right (and that means right for you).

If you have ambitions towards being a good photographer, ignore these
'rules', because they're not rules at all and will only serve to make your
pictures banal and uninterestingly uniform. And like I said, they will also
lead you into imposing an inappropriate structure on many pictures. If you
have no such ambitions, then why bother with the rules anyway?

Stick to whatever composition looks best to you. If you have an eye for it,
then you do not need rules.



"Toke Eskildsen" wrote in message
...
I read a short article on about.com about the Rule of Thirds:
http://graphicssoft.about.com/librar...leofthirds.htm

This article surprised me somewhat as I have never heard about such
rule. I do however know of the Golden Section.


The Golden Section positions the lines approximately 38% from the edges
of the picture, whereas the Rule of Thirds positions the lines
approximately 33% from the edges. If I overlay the two types of guides
on an image, I find that the suggestions for composition are rather
different.

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? Is the
Rule of Thirds just meant as an easy approximation to the Golden
Section?

Toke Eskildsen apparently said:

I'm didn't ask how to use the rules, but what rule to choose.

While this thread continues its descent into venom and
vituperation, I will take this opportunity to attempt to condense
both of the rules into one common idea:

DO NOT PLACE SUBJECT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FRAME.

Yes, there will be exceptions, like with all rules, but in general
a subject placed in the center of the frame will appear to be
static and lifeless as compared to one that is offset. Both
the Rule of Thirds and the Golden Section are attempts to
quantify this, IMO.

That is all.

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:33:15 GMT, Rich Miller wrote:

Oh for GOD'S sake.....PUT A CORK IN IT!! Enough is enough. I doubt either
of you are destine for a Pulitzer anyway.

If all you want to do is argue, exchange phone numbers and hash it out in
private.

Who died and made you Queen?

Enter Your Full Name wrote:

Stick to whatever composition looks best to you. If you have an
eye for it, then you do not need rules.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm not satisfied with what my
eyes give me. I've taken a little over 10.000 digital photos in the
past 1½ year - mostly family photos - and while I think I'm getting a
little better, the difference between then and now isn't that big. I
hope that experimenting with rules can change that.

Steve wrote:

[...]

Worthless analogy.

Okay.

[Snip Repetitions]

Still worthless. And are you seriously saying that you can't judge
roughly a third of a distance by eye?

No go. Your question is based on the analogy that you deemed worthless.

Instead of worrying about the meaningless distinction between 33%
and 38%, go and study some photos, go and take some photos and try
to develop an instinct for composition - because if you can't do
this instinctively, you are wasting your time.

I do think you've rather overestimated my intentions. I do not try to
be a great photographer. It would be great to be able to take
astonishing photos with nerve and personality, but I'm not willing to
invest the time and energy. Not to mention that I have big doubts about
me being capable of it anyway.

I do however take a fair amount of photos, let's call it "documenting
life" as "family-photos" sounds so dull. I won't stop doing that even
if I never will good at it. But I would like to get better.

Having a guide on your focusing screen will not help you produce
better pictures - you'll simply produce more predictable pictures
to a rigid formula and will be tempted to use these rules regardless
of the picture content.

I'm not afraid of producing predictable easy-on-the-eye pictures for
the next months. I'm actually hoping to take such photos, since that
would show that I'd grasped the ideas.

After that than we'll see if I want to bring it to another level or
just be satisfied. Who knows? I might find that it gives me nothing and
abandon the rules altogether. I don't know before I've tried.

Bear in mind that, while there are plenty of people who
need such guidelines, this is usually because they lack talent.

That sounds very fitting for me. My primary interest is the motives.

[Snip Towards being a good photographer]

If you have no such ambitions, then why bother with the rules anyway?

Because I want to take better photos. Better to be mediocre than bad.


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?