Question about composition

dws1117 · 06-19-2008, 12:00 PM

This is mainly for Peter Zack, but I will happily take anyone's opinion and expertise. Please don't tell me to take a class or read a book. Although those are worthy suggestions.

I started a new thread because I didn't want to hi jack bwield's thread with his excellent drinking tiger shot.

Peter in that thread you made the comment:

But (Yeah you knew I'd say that) this is a critique right? The head is almost dead center. It's a common problem with many shots. The rule of thirds shouldn't be rigid but in many cases it makes sense. The tendancy is to spot focus or be concentrating on the central subject and put it in the middle of the shot. The space on the right is mostly blank and does not add much to the shot. Here's an example of what I mean:

Why not the middle? What is so "wrong" about the subject being in the middle? The rule of thirds is always quoted when discussing subject placement. Isn't the middle one of the thirds? Am I looking at all wrong? Please help me understand.

Thanks

Wayne

attack11 · 06-19-2008, 12:06 PM

balance. if subject's in the center it's kinda like a target. the rest of the picture seems unbalanced. it can work well if you're showing speed and scale, or doing a dramatic picture; but generally it's not going to be the best crop.

i tend to work the golden ratio instead of thirds.

dws1117 · 06-19-2008, 12:10 PM

This image is on the wikipedia page about the rule of thirds. It appears that the photographer is using the lines as a guide for his composition instead of the spaces. Is this the correct way to apply the rule of thirds? I guess I've always thought it was the opposite.

attack11 · 06-19-2008, 12:12 PM

yeah. it's basically a simple grid system. it's easier to compose if your viewfinder screen has it etched in.

dws1117 · 06-19-2008, 12:15 PM

So, is it using the grid lines and not the spaces?

*Damn Brit* · 06-19-2008, 12:18 PM

Hi Wayne, let me be the first to say "Rules are meant to be broken"

I think it's all subjective, maybe it should be the general rule of thirds because I think it does apply most of the time. My Begonia shot from yesterday that you so kindly commented on was centred and I think it works because everything radiates out from the centre in that shot, although Ole did suggest cropping it, that's where the subjective part comes in to it. Usually I follow the ROT but I also look at the focal point of the picture and see where it leads me. That helps me quite a lot when I'm cropping.
Gary

dws1117 · 06-19-2008, 12:23 PM

Thanks, Gary.

I agree that all of the rules are more or less guide lines that don't apply all of the time, but I also feel that one should understand them to know when they are breaking them and why. That's what i am trying to accomplish. I usually go by feel when I sit down with an image to process or look through the viewfinder. My goal is to put out the best images that I can.

attack11 · 06-19-2008, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by dws1117

So, is it using the grid lines and not the spaces?

right. put the subject on one of the intersections. gives you a balanced .. unbalanced look. look into the grid system for design if you wanna understand it more.

thirds can quickly become the golden ratio depending on the scene, so it's probably better to understand that one.

a a i b · 06-19-2008, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by dws1117

Why not the middle? What is so "wrong" about the subject being in the middle? The rule of thirds is always quoted when discussing subject placement. Isn't the middle one of the thirds? Am I looking at all wrong? Please help me understand.

For me, a middle framed subject isn't so much wrong as representative of missed opportunities. Middle is like a target -- our eyes zero in on it, to the detriment of the rest of the picture. Middle also implies a (rigid) symmetry, which isn't kind to natural objects, or let's say doesn't do them any favors (but with man-made objects middle composition can highlight something about the subject). Middle is hard to call balanced, because the balance is now around one point (the middle) rather than a couple of points (as a rule of thirds composition might have).

To sum up: there's nothing wrong with the subject being in the middle, unless framing the subject off-center would have made for a better picture -- in terms of formal balance or narrative power.

dws1117 · 06-19-2008, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by attack11

right. put the subject on one of the intersections. gives you a balanced .. unbalanced look. look into the grid system for design if you wanna understand it more.

thirds can quickly become the golden ratio depending on the scene, so it's probably better to understand that one.

Thanks for putting it gently and in novice terms. You've all been a big help and I hope to start applying what I've been learning when my new macro lens come in tomorrow.

MRRiley · 06-19-2008, 06:56 PM

Another important point about the ROT is that it introduces tension and thus a sense of anticipation to an image. Most, but not all, images can benefit from this tension. As many folks have said, rules were meant to be broken and that is certainly true. However it is important to understand the reasons behind the rule so that you can break and move beyond it.