[clackers]

Good morning, all. I'm a very data driven guy. I recently took a pole.

And 100% of the people in the tent were angry when it collapsed.

But I'm trying to be a better person. I once tried to humiliate an ex-girlfriend by telling all my friends she was terrible in bed.

That backfired, when they all disagreed.

This week, I want to talk about a principle known to designers (interior decorators are big on this) that can apply to photography as well.

It's that an image or scene with an odd number of identical or similar objects is somehow more appealing than an even number, and it's separate from any geometric arrangement of them. Three cushions on a sofa seem more memorable than four, five bottles of wine spaced apart on a shelf more interesting than six.

Why this might be so is anyone's guess. Perhaps our minds are stimulated by the asymmetry.

In any case, we can apply that when framing and arranging in our own photography, like the highland band members below, taken with the Pentax K-1 and Sigma 85mm f1.4.

To finish with this week, there's the story of the man who taps his taxi driver on the shoulder to get his attention.

The driver screeches, loses control of the vehicle, nearly hits a car, swerves up a footpath, just misses a pedestrian and stops inches from a shop window.

For a few moments there's a deathly silence. Then the driver gasps, "Are you alright? I'm terribly sorry, but you scared the sh!t out of me."

The man whispers, "I'm sorry for startling you. I had no idea that a tap on the shoulder would do that."

"No, it was my fault. Today's my first day with the taxi. I've been driving a hearse for ten years."



Find the rest of the series here: Clackers' Beginners Tips (Collected) - PentaxForums.com

[MarkJerling]

Why this might be so is anyone's guess. Perhaps our minds are stimulated by the asymmetry.

Very cool topic Ian.

The thinking seems to be that we humans like symmetry and our minds are naturally programmed to group things into pairs. So, the theory goes, when we see an uneven number of things, that creates a natural tension in us as we notice the asymmetry more, because of the lack of symmetry, and therefore the image interests us more.

Interestingly, it works very well for objects in groupings of 3 or 5, but less well for groupings of 7, 9, 11 etc. The thinking is that we automatically group smaller numbers of items but we have to start counting for the larger numbers and the effect is therefore lost. Three and five are interesting in that they probably relate to our ability to quickly visualize 3 and 5 by mentally counting on one hand. For larger uneven numbers we need to start using both hands.

This ties in with other factors such as pricing theory where it's understood that $13.99 sells better than $14.00, and only partly for the reason that it "seems" less. Tests seem to show that something like $13.99 actually sells better than, say, something marked $13.71. It seems our minds don't like "confusing" numbers.

An interesting aside with number theory is that when you look at groups of uneven numbers, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 .... 49, 51, 53, 55, 57 etc. then you'll notice that you can always divide every third number through three. One can easily check this for larger groups of numbers by using the divisibility rule for 3, which states that a number is completely divisible by 3 if the sum of its digits is divisible by 3. As example: 516 is divisible by 3 as the sum of its digits i.e. 5+1+6=12, is a multiple of 3. Bend your mind with that one!

[clackers]

Very cool topic Ian.

The thinking seems to be that we humans like symmetry and our minds are naturally programmed to group things into pairs. So, the theory goes, when we see an uneven number of things, that creates a natural tension in us as we notice the asymmetry more, because of the lack of symmetry, and therefore the image interests us more.

Interestingly, it works very well for objects in groupings of 3 or 5, but less well for groupings of 7, 9, 11 etc. The thinking is that we automatically group smaller numbers of items but we have to start counting for the larger numbers and the effect is therefore lost. Three and five are interesting in that they probably relate to our ability to quickly visualize 3 and 5 by mentally counting on one hand. For larger uneven numbers we need to start using both hands.

Yeah, Mark, I've seen explanations offered that since the eyes wander longer over the scene trying to process what they're looking at, if it's a large number the mind sort of gives up, so engagement with the image ceases in that category.

Not sure anyone's formally proven it in psychology experiments, but it 'sounds right', so as photographers we can take advantage.

[StiffLegged]

…Three cushions on a sofa seem more memorable than four, five bottles of wine spaced apart on a shelf more interesting than six.

Interesting thoughts, clacks, but my experience is Pentaxians generally would exhibit more interest in six bottles.

[kypfer]

To finish with this week, there's the story of the man who taps his taxi driver on the shoulder to get his attention.
The driver screeches, loses control of the vehicle, nearly hits a car, swerves up a footpath, just misses a pedestrian and stops inches from a shop window.
For a few moments there's a deathly silence. Then the driver gasps, "Are you alright? I'm terribly sorry, but you scared the sh!t out of me."
The man whispers, "I'm sorry for startling you. I had no idea that a tap on the shoulder would do that."
"No, it was my fault. Today's my first day with the taxi. I've been driving a hearse for ten years."

Haha … more truth than you realise!
An old acquaintance of mine had a similar experience … it was his cat that had found it's way into his van, tapped him on the shoulder as he was driving down a hill … don't think the van was repairable, though the driver (and the cat) escaped with a few bruises!


Interesting thoughts about the asymmetry in pictures … I'll be giving that some consideration

[MrB1]

Several years ago I took this picture of a group of four trees in a park and entered it in a local club competition, giving it the title: "Is Four An Odd Number?". Fortunately, the visiting judge liked the image (and the title) and gave it a good score!

Philip

---------- Post added 08-12-22 at 03:53 AM ----------

P.S. Great story about the taxi driver! Thanks Clackers.

Philip

[MossyRocks]

Several years ago I took this picture of a group of four trees in a park and entered it in a local club competition, giving it the title: "Is Four An Odd Number?".

It is a nice striking image and has the feel of 5 trees. When I first glimpsed it I saw it as 5 trees (the 5th one being the wonky branch on the far left of the left most tree) in my mind.

[biz-engineer]

I've never heard of the rule of odd numbers, so it's new to me. I however heard of the rule of 3, or at least the rule of less than 7 (could be two, four, or six), the reason being not to overload cognitive capabilities of the human brain and compositional balance. For instance, you could have a composition with 51 elements in it, 51 is an odd number, but the composition would have low impact due to cognitive overload (unless it's about to show a repetitive pattern, in which case it doesn't matter if the number of cycles is odd or even). The rule of three (odd) or four (even) is used all the time in speeches, articles, books, and images (notice the 4 elements in the sentence) , because it's low effort for the brain to process in short term memory.

[gatorguy]

Yeah, Mark, I've seen explanations offered that since the eyes wander longer over the scene trying to process what they're looking at, if it's a large number the mind sort of gives up, so engagement with the image ceases in that category.

Not sure anyone's formally proven it in psychology experiments, but it 'sounds right', so as photographers we can take advantage.

In my graphic design I always consider the "odd number" rule. I don't always follow it, sometimes better to go with even numbers, but more often than not if the number of elements does matter keeping with odd is far more likely. Once I go beyond 7 the importance is minimal IMO, probably to most of the readers too. As Mark alluded to several posts back, there are only so many things you can take in at one time!

Great tip Ian.

[gatorguy]

Very cool topic Ian.

The thinking seems to be that we humans like symmetry and our minds are naturally programmed to group things into pairs. So, the theory goes, when we see an uneven number of things, that creates a natural tension in us as we notice the asymmetry more, because of the lack of symmetry, and therefore the image interests us more.

Interestingly, it works very well for objects in groupings of 3 or 5, but less well for groupings of 7, 9, 11 etc. The thinking is that we automatically group smaller numbers of items but we have to start counting for the larger numbers and the effect is therefore lost. Three and five are interesting in that they probably relate to our ability to quickly visualize 3 and 5 by mentally counting on one hand. For larger uneven numbers we need to start using both hands.

This ties in with other factors such as pricing theory where it's understood that $13.99 sells better than $14.00, and only partly for the reason that it "seems" less. Tests seem to show that something like $13.99 actually sells better than, say, something marked $13.71. It seems our minds don't like "confusing" numbers.

An interesting aside with number theory is that when you look at groups of uneven numbers, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 .... 49, 51, 53, 55, 57 etc. then you'll notice that you can always divide every third number through three. One can easily check this for larger groups of numbers by using the divisibility rule for 3, which states that a number is completely divisible by 3 if the sum of its digits is divisible by 3. As example: 516 is divisible by 3 as the sum of its digits i.e. 5+1+6=12, is a multiple of 3. Bend your mind with that one!

I think I need at least one more cup of coffee before re-reading for comprehension. You're 100% right though.

[AggieDad]

It's that an image or scene with an odd number of identical or similar objects is somehow more appealing than an even number, and it's separate from any geometric arrangement of them. Three cushions on a sofa seem more memorable than four, five bottles of wine spaced apart on a shelf more interesting than six.

Why this might be so is anyone's guess. Perhaps our minds are stimulated by the asymmetry.

Five bottles of wine are definitely more interesting than 4 bottles. But six bottles???

This odd number phenomenon typically has a practical limit at 7 (perhaps even 5) as once we have too many items it becomes difficult for the eye to grasp the number with a quick scan.

We tend to do a similar thing with visual divisors (i.e.lines) within shapes. For example, a line close to the center looks wrong (you missed the center), while if the line is moved a bit farther away from center it looks as though it is where it should be.

[FotoGekko]

Hi Clackers,
As I always enjoy your tips I opened the PentasForum post. On my screen (attached) appeared this view
What's happening here????? Destiny, magic, do you or Google adds own my computer?? Freaking!
And now I am sure I will have to apply your tip, somehow.....

Cheers Gerared

[MarkJerling]

I've never heard of the rule of odd numbers, so it's new to me. I however heard of the rule of 3, or at least the rule of less than 7 (could be two, four, or six), the reason being not to overload cognitive capabilities of the human brain and compositional balance. For instance, you could have a composition with 51 elements in it, 51 is an odd number, but the composition would have low impact due to cognitive overload (unless it's about to show a repetitive pattern, in which case it doesn't matter if the number of cycles is odd or even). The rule of three (odd) or four (even) is used all the time in speeches, articles, books, and images (notice the 4 elements in the sentence) , because it's low effort for the brain to process in short term memory.

Can't say I've ever heard of a "rule of less than 7". That's a new one for me. Rule of three, and rule of odd numbers yes, but never "rule of less than seven".
Interesting. I'll have to do some googling.

[biz-engineer]

Can't say I've ever heard of a "rule of less than 7". That's a new one for me. Rule of three, and rule of odd numbers yes, but never "rule of less than seven".Interesting. I'll have to do some googling.

I shouldn't say rule. What I wanted to say is about reducing cognitive load is a goal in communication. If you had 10 elements in a photograph, perhaps you would want to sub-divide those 10 elements in groups to give a sense of structure, such as in the table of content of a book , but graphically. Now, imagine you have to photograph a class of students, you may position them randomly in one single group, or you may position them by size in two, three or four rows, which picture would look more compelling?

[gatorguy]

I shouldn't say rule. What I wanted to say is about reducing cognitive load is a goal in communication. If you had 10 elements in a photograph, perhaps you would want to sub-divide those 10 elements in groups to give a sense of structure, such as in the table of content of a book , but graphically. Now, imagine you have to photograph a class of students, you may position them randomly in one single group, or you may position them by size in two, three or four rows, which picture would look more compelling?

I think you're using different phrases to say the same thing Mark did in Post #2, and which others have alluded to as well.

Composition requires attention to many things as we all know. The Rule of Odd Numbers, which btw is a real rule learned in graphic design, is just one that Ian has done readers a service with mentioning.

While you may not have heard of the Rule of Odd Numbers before now, once you look into it and understand the evidence for its effectiveness, you'll begin to recognize it at work all around you: Phrases (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for example), photo composition as Ian has shown, stage plays (three acts is typical), the proper color balance in design (both three and five work well), sports, staging in furniture displays and products, advertising, gosh everywhere!