[rustynail925]

Which one follows the rule of third? W/c is better?

1

2

[jct us101]

I don't think that either of them really do, but I'm not an expert on the rule of thirds because I think that it's a dumb rule, and leaves out a lot of awesome photo styles when you constrain yourself to it. I think the second one is a lot better because of the addition of the fog (there's your rule of thirds, I guess) and it looks like the photo has a lot more contrast and pops a lot more. I like the second one.

[CWyatt]

In my opinion following the 'rule' of thirds is not going to make any photo good just because it's composed that way. Certain things benefit from it but I like Andreas Feininger's approach - he said something like 'There are no rules in photography, only principles.'

I find that beneficial - thirds is a tool to be used for some compositions and not for others.

The second photo is better exposed but I think they'd benefit more from some scale or foreground objects more than any rules of thirds issue.

[RioRico]

From Wikipedia:

The rule of thirds is a compositional rule of thumb in visual arts such as painting, photography and design. The rule states that an image should be imagined as divided into nine equal parts by two equally-spaced horizontal lines and two equally-spaced vertical lines, and that important compositional elements should be placed along these lines or their intersections. Proponents of the technique claim that aligning a subject with these points creates more tension, energy and interest in the composition than simply centering the subject would.

Rules are like standards; the nice thing is, there are so many of them. Sometimes I use a Rule of Halves, or a Rule of Fourths, although I try not to be ruled by fifths. (Old rockabilly lyric: "I've got four on the floor / and a fifth under the seat".) Sometimes I subvert the Rule of Thirds by filling the central ninth and leaving the rest sparse, or vice versa.

Ah, so many rules and techniques. To see which apply and how, look at some comic book and other magazine covers; at billboards, posters, display ads; at dioramas, tableaux, clusters of statuary; at architecture, classical and modern. Read books on display typography and page layout. Hint: many rectangular pages more closely follow a rule of 3/4's or 3/5's, or 2/3's or 2/4's, as columns/rows. I seem to see the Rule of Thirds mostly in square formats, and not even all of those. Look at covers of square media products.

The purpose of any graphic presentation is to grab eyeballs. Compositional rules are supposed to drag your attention towards whatever the artist wants you to notice. If clever, the artist may include contrasts and contradictions and ironies at other points in a compositional structure. The invention of perspective in the 1300's directly addressed the problem of directing eyeballs to desired locations. These principles were often overlaid upon earlier compositional rules like the Golden Mean (don't worry, I won't quote it here) of which the Rule of Thirds may be a mere bastardization. Theories of leading lines, following lines, all that stuff, IIRC.

Whatever works for you, do it. Sometimes having all the action occurring along one edge of a wide image, or two edges of a square image, generates considerable impact. I recall one album cover (remember 33 rpm albums?) that was mostly blank, with a low city skyline along the bottom and half a looming skyscraper along the right edge. Titling was a small block in the far upper left. More like a Rule of Eighths there. Putting the subject at a far edge of a 2:1 pano implies the dynamism of entry or exit. There are many ways to grab attention. A bullet hole in the exact center works too.

Look at some modern works on visual design. I don't think the Rule of Thirds has a prominent part. But I could be wrong. That happens sometimes. Like day before yesterday.

Oh yes, the photos above. Ummm, where is the subject? Where is my attention supposed to be directed? The picture needs a stegosaurus or flying saucer or something. OK, it's shooping time!

[song_hm]

Which one follows the rule of third? W/c is better?

The first one suffers from the far ridge line being too close to the middle horizontal, this splits the picture into two separate halves. The valley is positioned on the lower right third better than the 2nd, but this barely registers with the viewer because it is over powered by the split.

The 2nd conforms to the rules of third in two ways. The far ridge and cloud line lies on the upper horizontal third. The bottom of the valley lies on the lower right third, although a tad too far to the right.

The 2nd is the better images because the low clouds lend an additional dimension of interest.

'There are no rules in photography, only principles.'

In spite of the name, the Rules of Third is not a rule but is indeed a principle. I doubt it if Andreas Feininger was advocating ignoring the Rules of Third (or Principles of Third, if you will).

Ummm, where is the subject? Where is my attention supposed to be directed?

The valley IS the subject.

[CWyatt]

In spite of the name, the Rules of Third is not a rule but is indeed a principle. I doubt it if Andreas Feininger was advocating ignoring the Rules of Third (or Principles of Third, if you will).

No he certainly wasn't, which is why I wrote what I got from his take: thirds is a tool to be used for some compositions and not for others. The gist is that it's not a be-all-and-end all - breaking the 'rule' if it will be more effective to do so - which isn't really an unusual idea.

The valley IS the subject.

I think RioRico's point was that the images lack a central subject to draw the eye. There's no foreground or scale so it looks flat with little detail.

[Wheatfield]

The nice thing about the rule of thirds is that it works.
The bottom image to me is closer to following the rule of thirds, and to my eye is the more pleasing of two pretty bland images, but this might also be because the light is better in the second image.
You should ask this question again, but use just one image and crop it into what you want to show.

[rustynail925]

Okay thx guys. Lets just forgot the exposure on this and focus on the composition.

[rustynail925]

I think RioRico's point was that the images lack a central subject to draw the eye. There's no foreground or scale so it looks flat with little detail.

Are landscapes supposed to have a subject?

[seacapt]

The rule of thirds is a guide based on how the average eye / mind works when looking at an image.
It is in most cases helpful in composition.
Personally I prefer the simillar principle of circles in a square .
As to your pictures , IMO the first is a better shot but not because of either principle.

[CWyatt]

Are landscapes supposed to have a subject?

I'm not 100% sure what you mean?

These are couple of (rather poor reproductions) or classic Ansel Adams shots, which are effective in part because of the way your eye is drawn into the scene - here and here.

[song_hm]

I think RioRico's point was that the images lack a central subject to draw the eye. There's no foreground or scale so it looks flat with little detail.

The OP is clearly trying to understand how to apply the Rules of Third. While RioRico and your responses are valid in themselves, they do not address the OP's question.

Misconception #1: the OP's picture have no subject. There IS a central subject, it is the valley below. That the OP did not succeed in making it stand out is beside the point. That suggesting to change the subject askRioRico did is missing the point. The challenge here is how to make it standout rather than to replace it.

Misconception #2: these picture does not benefit from rules of third. It is interesting you both dismisses the rules of third then advocate that different principles are required. Not all landscape pictures must have a rock in the foreground, those that do benefits from application of the rules of third.

[CWyatt]

It is interesting you both dismisses the rules of third then advocate that different principles are required.

No, I said I simply said the rule of thirds does have have to be dogmatically followed, but can help compositions.

[Tuner571]

For me I really like the rule of thirds because as I used it and practiced it I slowly became a better photographer overall. The rule of thirds is a compositional rule of thumb in visual arts; it is not a set rule that every photographer has to follow.

However, if you do use it like me the rule states that an image should be imagined as divided into nine equal parts by two equally-spaced horizontal lines and two equally-spaced vertical lines, and that important compositional elements should be placed along these lines or their intersections. I think that by using this technique the subject on these points creates more tension, energy and interest in the composition than simply centering the subject right in the middle of the photo.

Now for your question, I think the second one is a better follower of the rule of thirds. This is because unlike the first, the horizon is not right in the middle of the photo. In the second one, the horizon is above center and it shows more of the nearby hillside which is a valid subject.

I hope this helps,
Cory

[song_hm]

...by using this technique the subject on these points creates more tension, energy and interest in the composition...

Actually it is the other way around. Subject placed on the line or intersection creates balance, and therefore less tension. Placing the subject away from the line or intersection create more tension due to decreased balance.

The Rules of Third is an approximation of the Golden Ratio. This ratio is found all over nature, and we are attuned to it. Whenever we sense it by our vision or hearing, we find it pleasing. The ratio is known to man since the classical Greek, they applied that knowledge when they build the Parthenon.