|
I've been told it's acceptable to center the subject as long as the focus point (the subject's face or eyes in most cases) appears in one of the thirds. I'm interested to see what others have to say.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i would share the pics at the center of our disagreement, but they're of a friend's child, and i don't have permission to make the pics public
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The rule of thirds is only something to keep in mind when composing rather than a rule. I always side with doing whatever looks good when a photo doesn't lend itself to the rule of thirds.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I believe the so called rules of photography (rule of 3rds, golden ratio, blur the background of every portrait, etc) should be treated as guidelines rather than rules.
While adherence may help you get a good photo non-adherence does not automatically mean that you will not.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
One of the best ways to rebut that adherence to a set of 'rules' is mandatory is to debunk them with examples of quality work.
Herman Leonard is world renowned photographer who was trained by Yousef Karsch (another world renowned photographer). Here are some samples of his portrait work that did not follow rule of thirds.
Do you think these images are failures?
Duke Ellington
Miss Creole
Chet Baker
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
Ballroompics edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
Rules are meant to be broken - but you should know why and when it's necessary to break them. I see you use Lightroom - check out the different Crop Overlay options it offers, the rule of thirds is certainly the best known but not the only option.
Here's two blog posts about those options for those of you without Lightroom:
blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2007/09/crop-guide-overlays.html
www.revellphotography.com/blog/?p=2853
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Rules are meant to be broken. As long as the image looks good, it's good. Rule of thirds can be accomplished with shadow, highlights, color and contrast. Sometimes we concentrate so much on the physical objects or subjects within an image that we accomplish the rule of thirds without even knowing it,
There is a famous picture of Ross Perot peeking out from behind a wall or column. It violates the rule of thirds and several other rules of composition and yet it is a great picture because it says something about the subject in a way that is simple and unique. (Perot was a virtual unknown to the general public and had just submitted his bid as an independent candidate for president).
The rules were developed as a tool to teach composition, but they are not laws of physics. They are there to give you clues about ways to draw the viewer into the image and/or say something about a subject. Following some rules may violate other rules. Go with your gut, if you think it looks good and the person you are taking it for thinks it looks good, then who cares what rules it did or did not follow.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Actually, just to point this out, of those 3 images posted, the first two follow the rules of thirds. In the first one, the paino and man as a whole are situated in the bottom left of the photo, they're not dead center. The second one, the woman is centered, but her joyful face and expression are in the top third, and that's where your eyes go. And the last shot, the eyes are centered, which is generally a no-no, and I hate to critique famous work but....it would be a better "traditional portrait" if there were less room at the top. Omg, someone is going to impale me for saying that. :P
But yes, I agree that once the rules and learned, understood, followed and respected, the next reasonable step is to break them whenever you deem necessary. But they're a good starting point for a pleasing-to-the-eye portrait.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The Miss Creole image is an excellent example of following the rule of thirds using the contrast between the dress and background, the edge of the dress instead of the dress itself.
And there is no rule that says you blur the background for a portrait. Sometimes you need the background to be in focus or at least sharp enough to be identifiable to provide context for the subject. You blur the background to make it a backdrop or hide distracting features or make a subject pop. But there are other ways to make a subject "pop" other than a blurry background, like with perspecitve and field of view (like using an ultrawide lens). What you don't want in a portrait is a background that draws attention away from the subject, unless you have a reason to want to draw attention away from the subject.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Krysten, no worries on pic number three, that was the style of the time, it isn't my favorite pic either. I think it woul be much improved without the danglies in front of his forehead.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I can buy that the first picture follows the rule of thirds (having now had it pointed out to me to treat Duke E and his piano as one integrated component) but have difficulty with the idea that the Miss Creole photo follows the rule. As I perceive it. the picture itself IS divided into thirds but the main subject of the portrait is the woman herself and she (and her dress) really occupy the middle third of the photo.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, it would be different if the picture was taken further back and her entire body was centered in the frame top to bottom, side to side, but it's not... If you look at the image side-to-side, yes, she's in the center third. But from top to bottom, she crossed over all thirds of the image, with the main focal points (being her face and umbrella in my own personal interpretation, mind you) being in the top third. Thats just my thoughts though!! I'm no expert! :)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think photographers make too much of the rules of thirds.
More that almost any other artists. I studied at a couple of decent art colleges (not photography particularly), and can barely recall it being mentioned. It's an interesting convention and can be useful but in the end as an artist you should have you're own instincts about what works.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
AnthonyGibbons edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
@ AnthonyGibbons Hear, hear, I only ever recall it being mentioned once at art college in a history class.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
People are generally attracted to a photo that is divided into the rule of thirds but there is nothing that says if it does not follow that rule it is not good. Besides, that is not the only rule one can use. (i.e., guideline) certian shapes and patterns and lines and forms and colors are all used in good composition. the rule of thirds is only one
Portraits depending on if they are face, bust or full length should be considered with any other item that you chose to place in the shot. There is no hard rule to make the background out of focus either. However, if there is a tree branch growing out of someones head you might want to use some creative Bokeh.
Also (IMO) the third photo above also has a horizonal line at the 1/3 up just above the horns at the neck tie, that is partly why the eyes work at 1/2 way up. The man starts at the bottom and goes just above 1/2 up and there are strings starting at the top and go about 1/2 down. They over lap pulling the top into the frame so it is not just an empty space. The photo has the horn for 1/3, the guy for 1/3 and the reflection of the room with the light string for the top 1/3rd. (they are not equal thirds but you get the idea) Plus he is angled and tilted forward adding depth between him and the horn. I think it is really a great photo. And it too basically follows the rule of thirds. However, it looks creatively composed not technically positioned
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm not entirely against the rules of thirds, each to their own, but I do think that there is too much of it made by photographers.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Photgraph what you want not what someone else says you should do....................rules are boring and restrictive and hinder creativity
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner . "
..Arghh!
.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
Orbmiser edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
Been time-travelling again, orb9220? International Talk Like A Pirate Day is next sunday.... :-)
(A good way of illustrating it, though.)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sorry couldn't help myself...Arghhh!
.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
What's an unemployed pirate do for money?
Yarrrrddd sale. Sorry couldn't help myself either.
I think there is a general consensous that the guidelines are there because they have proven to be successful in creating good or great photography. I also think that most photos that capture ones eye do follow one of the many guidelines and one's unique style can add to or detract from how another preceive the work. Everyone has the capability to develop their own style. But it is my experience (and not a vast one I admit) that most successful photographers do employ a number of different compositional guidelines in their work.
I agree with the photographer above that said "Rule's are meant to be broken". I think that coloring outside the line is a good thing and needs to be done. However, I also think one should have an understanding of what the rules are so they know how to break them. Otherwise it's just trial and error.
Someone once said if you give a 1000 monkeys a thousand type writers eventually they will type something meaningful. I suspect the same is true with a camera. Give a monkey a camera and set him loose and he will evenually come back with a few shots that are interesting. If he knew the rules he could at least start with what he thinks might work for a particular situation and then push the envelope from there. Nothings says you have to strictly obey the guidelines but one should at least know them
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
shottwokill edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
I think it is hard to say whether Picture 2 follows the rule of thirds or not. I would say it probably does not, but it is still a good composition in my opinion. My eyes go directly to the umbrella (whose position happens to follow the rule of thirds), and then, directed by the umbrella's stick, my eyes fall down into the dancer's face. So while the face's position may not follow the rule of thirds, there are other elements in the composition that guide you through the picture and into her face. The same applies to Picture number 3. Whether the danglies in front of his forehead are or not ok, it's maybe a question of taste. But again, the little bells on the top capture my attention, and then my eyes are directed into his eyes by means of the strings. So I think it is a composition that works. Maybe it could work better, but it still works.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just wondering what you guys/gals think of these two. Are they strong enough to have the subject in the center? I am definatly an amature. I think for most people and most shots the rule of thirds is an easy way to get a good composition. But its not a law of the universe by any means. Some of my favorite shots of mine are smack dab in the middle of the frame. To each their own
This would make a good photo contest-- "Ignoring the Rule of Thirds"
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
Jayman931 edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
With the couple I personally would have cropped out left until palm tree was gone found it drawing my eye away from couple.
And yep did one just like yours to try a determine when center works or not. Seems Subject plays more importance when centering it. And Subject complexity? Just guessing as am no pro and just trying to learn.
.
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
Orbmiser edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
The rule of thirds is an important rule and is great for guidance. It's an excellent starting point. The rule of thirds isn't specific on what goes where and I think a lot of people may think it's being ignored when that's not really the case. There's nothing wrong with a centered subject but while sometimes it is the best choice often it isn't..
Originally posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
jamesrdoe edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
The first one I really like the couple and the sand. The tree didn't bother me but the guy in the background that looks like he is standing on the subject head bothered me in the first one. My eye went right to it. and I can't stop seeing it. The second one to me has nothing to do with the rule of thirds. It is the attraction of subject patterns within your frame shape (pattern) and the use of space. I do like the random cracks in the wall. Just my opinion. but you asked.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
The rule of thirds is a compositional device or tool, but it isn't the only tool.
To answer the OP, It's OK to center the subject when it looks good, and/or when doing so makes the image say what you want it to say. Rule of thirds is a guideline only. If you take a portrait and you are having problems getting the composition you want, it might be a good place to start. (There are those that would argue that the subject should almost always be the center of a posed portrait.)
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
RE-shottwokill...I never noticed that guy...until you pointed him out....lol...he does kinda stand out....If I had any editing skills I am sure he could be removed...
Anyways...it sounds pretty conclusive to me....its a rule and it can be broken..
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you want your photo to look like millions of others then follow the "rule" of thirds. If you want to be creative then pay no attention. I sometimes have photos that follow the rule of thirds, but not because I forced it; in fact I only notice it on the computer most times. But I have many others that are dead center, or some other way. I like them; that is all that is needed.
Some artistic schools come up with things like these rules, and their use is what distiguishes the works of art to be part of that school. But rules end up being too restrictive and after much use they become cliches.
Do whatever you like. If you like it, then it is your art. Maybe many years later others will consider it a masterpiece. How many times did this happen in history? Art is for the artist.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think the rule of thirds is a very good guideline. It of course can be broken, but there better be a good reason for it. The reason for the rule is not that someone said it needs to be followed, but rather it is based on how the mind visualizes things. Your mind will circle around a photo that follows the rules, but when something is centered the mind just goes stagnant on the image. There have been many physiological/psychological studies done on this. there are of curse other things to consider, such as leading lines and visual motion.
In Jayman's images I agree with orb9220. In the other photo certainty what makes it interesting are the cracks in the wall, so it actually is following the rule of thirds.
You should not get locked into it, but there should be a reason for not following it. So if you train yourself to shoot mostly rule of thirds, then your mind will see it without thinking. Then you can say, oh but it would look better breaking the rule.
Posted 33 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Nikon D80 Users /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Nikon D80 Users discussion threads
