What makes the "Rule of Thirds" work?

Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think
outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an
exception, yada yada yada... but, it's still a much-taught and accepted
"rule".

What makes it work?

The answers are probably as subjective as any other subject, but one
thing I can think of is context. It gives many photos context, while
at the same time not just throwing the main subject out there in a "sea
of nothing" as a photo quite often feels when the main subject is
blandly placed in the middle.

TheDave© wrote:

Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think
outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an
exception, yada yada yada... but, it's still a much-taught and accepted
"rule".

What makes it work?


Sometimes it makes a boring composition slightly less boring.
Sometimes it doesn't work at all. Like all "Rules" of composition,
its over-use tends to reduce creativity to a point where composition
becomes formulaic, predictable and downright boring.

The "Rule of Thirds" is actually a very inaccurate approximation of
the "Golden Ratio" or "Golden Section", which has a long historic
basis in composition of landscape paintings.

The Golden Ratio is not as simple as dividing the picture into thirds.
It is based on dividing one side of the composition so that the ratio
of the smaller part to the larger part is the same as the ratio of the
larger part to the whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
http://www.noteaccess.com/RELATIONSHIPS/DivinaP.htm
http://plus.maths.org/issue22/features/golden/
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekSc...im/Golden.html
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/

Although the math behind the Golden Ratio is fairly simple, it was
probably thought easier for the poorly (or un-)educated masses if it
was simplified still further. The trouble is that much or all of the
beauty of the Golden Section has been lost in dumbing it down to the
"Rule of Thirds".

In some circumstances, the "Rule of Thirds" does give a better
composition than having the subject in the centre. But don't let that
make you overlook the creative potential of a centred subject - a
powerful subject often looks great right in the centre of the shot,
especially if closely cropped.

Above all, don't overlook the Golden Ratio! If there is one "Rule" of
composition that works, this could be it ... it has certainly worked
well over many centuries for some of the world's finest artists.

TheDave© wrote:
Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think
outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an
exception, yada yada yada... but, it's still a much-taught and
accepted "rule".

What makes it work?

The answers are probably as subjective as any other subject, but one
thing I can think of is context. It gives many photos context, while
at the same time not just throwing the main subject out there in a
"sea of nothing" as a photo quite often feels when the main subject is
blandly placed in the middle.

OK. How about this goofy explanation off the top of my head...

If you observe your field of vision while staring stright ahead...and moving
your eyes only...your 3-D vision stops at the point where your nose blocks
either your left-ward field of vision from you right eye (rendering anything
farther than that "depthless" due to single-eye observation of it) and vice
versa. If you notice where this 2-D/3-D point starts/stops, it's roughly on
the two vertical lines that would make up the lines between the right third
point and the left third point. Perhaps we naturally try to keep points of
interest within our 3-D vision points...which happen to correspond with the
"rule of 3rds points."

This would not account at all for the horizontal line points...but what the
heck. g

Next: Why is it generally preferable to place a person facing to the
viewer's left on the right portion of the frame (looking toward, or facing
the bulk of the frame rather than the closer edge with space behind
them)?Perhaps it's because we tend to need 3-D vision available to us on the
side the object is traveling toward... If they are moving, they may be a
threat or target for attack/defense (think cave-man, here), so we tend to
place things facing inward inward into the field of vision (or frame) as we
anticipate our possible involvement with that object, and the need to see
where it may go.

Or... Maybe it's all the fault of the Egyptians...with some weird pyramid
thing! Ya! That's it...


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

TheDave© wrote:
Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think
outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an
exception, yada yada yada... but, it's still a much-taught and accepted
"rule".

What makes it work?

The answers are probably as subjective as any other subject, but one
thing I can think of is context. It gives many photos context, while
at the same time not just throwing the main subject out there in a "sea
of nothing" as a photo quite often feels when the main subject is
blandly placed in the middle.


One internationally famous photographer, Freeman Patterson, refers to
that maxim as 'a tool of thirds', planting the idea that it is a tool
to be used when appropriate rather than a 'rule' to be slavishly followed.

TP mentions the Golden Mean, of Greek origin, and used in such places as
the Parthenon etc., which lends pleasing proportions to the buildings.
Subsequently, painters used it as a guide to placing elements of their
paintings in strong positions on the canvas.

Practically, there isn't a lot of difference between thirds and the
Golden Mean/Section. A point on the thirds is 33.3% in from adjacent
edges of an image, while a Golden Mean/Section is 38.2% in from adjacent
edges, slightly closer to the centre of the image. Given that a picture
element placed on thirds or GS is probably considerably larger than the
difference between the point positions, the 4.9% difference is likely to
be indiscernible.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
TheDave© wrote:
Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think
outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an
exception, yada yada yada... but, it's still a much-taught and
accepted "rule".

What makes it work?

The answers are probably as subjective as any other subject, but one
thing I can think of is context. It gives many photos context, while
at the same time not just throwing the main subject out there in a
"sea of nothing" as a photo quite often feels when the main subject is
blandly placed in the middle.

OK. How about this goofy explanation off the top of my head...

If you observe your field of vision while staring stright ahead...and moving
your eyes only...your 3-D vision stops at the point where your nose blocks
either your left-ward field of vision from you right eye (rendering anything
farther than that "depthless" due to single-eye observation of it) and vice
versa. If you notice where this 2-D/3-D point starts/stops, it's roughly on
the two vertical lines that would make up the lines between the right third
point and the left third point. Perhaps we naturally try to keep points of
interest within our 3-D vision points...which happen to correspond with the
"rule of 3rds points."

This would not account at all for the horizontal line points...but what the
heck. g


Wow, I had never thought of that but it is very intersting.
Basically, 'straight ahead' is about 1/3 way across the visual field of
an eye. that would be the case if the nose blocked the field halfway
between the centre and the edge. That in turn would mean that the
ratio of height to width of the field of view woul d be 4:3.

As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an
approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a
matter of interest, the limit of the Finbonnaci series ratios.

if the nose blocked the field so that that 'ahead' was at the golden
ratio of the width then it turns out that the ratio of height to width
is also the golden ratio.

A square picture with its cornbers placed on tghe edge of the whole
visual field (both eyes) would have its 'eyes' ('rule of thirds'
points) at the edge of the stereo visual region and that region would
be in the Golden ratio.

I've never seen this mentioned in any book on art. Has anyone else?

Robert

"Robert" wrote:

As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an
approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a
matter of interest, the limit of the Finbonnaci series ratios.

if the nose blocked the field so that that 'ahead' was at the golden
ratio of the width then it turns out that the ratio of height to width
is also the golden ratio.

A square picture with its cornbers placed on tghe edge of the whole
visual field (both eyes) would have its 'eyes' ('rule of thirds'
points) at the edge of the stereo visual region and that region would
be in the Golden ratio.

I've never seen this mentioned in any book on art. Has anyone else?


Unlikely, as the Golden Ratio is actually 1.618 : 1. g

I have no idea where you got 1.218 from, unless it was a typo.

Tony Polson wrote:
"Robert" wrote:

As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an
approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a
matter of interest, the limit of the Finbonnaci series ratios.

if the nose blocked the field so that that 'ahead' was at the golden
ratio of the width then it turns out that the ratio of height to width
is also the golden ratio.

A square picture with its cornbers placed on tghe edge of the whole
visual field (both eyes) would have its 'eyes' ('rule of thirds'
points) at the edge of the stereo visual region and that region would
be in the Golden ratio.

I've never seen this mentioned in any book on art. Has anyone else?


Unlikely, as the Golden Ratio is actually 1.618 : 1. g

I have no idea where you got 1.218 from, unless it was a typo.

Tony Polson wrote:
"Robert" wrote:

As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an
approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as a
matter of interest, the limit of the Finbonnaci series ratios.

....
Unlikely, as the Golden Ratio is actually 1.618 : 1. g

I have no idea where you got 1.218 from, unless it was a typo.

Sorry, yes it was carelessness. it should be 1.666 for the rule of
thirds and 1.618 for the golden ratio.

R

Robert wrote:
Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
TheDave© wrote:
Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think
outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an
exception, yada yada yada... but, it's still a much-taught and
accepted "rule".

What makes it work?

The answers are probably as subjective as any other subject, but one
thing I can think of is context. It gives many photos context,
while at the same time not just throwing the main subject out there
in a "sea of nothing" as a photo quite often feels when the main
subject is blandly placed in the middle.

OK. How about this goofy explanation off the top of my head...

If you observe your field of vision while staring stright
ahead...and moving your eyes only...your 3-D vision stops at the
point where your nose blocks either your left-ward field of vision
from you right eye (rendering anything farther than that "depthless"
due to single-eye observation of it) and vice versa. If you notice
where this 2-D/3-D point starts/stops, it's roughly on the two
vertical lines that would make up the lines between the right third
point and the left third point. Perhaps we naturally try to keep
points of interest within our 3-D vision points...which happen to
correspond with the "rule of 3rds points."

This would not account at all for the horizontal line points...but
what the heck. g


Wow, I had never thought of that but it is very intersting.
Basically, 'straight ahead' is about 1/3 way across the visual field
of an eye. that would be the case if the nose blocked the field
halfway between the centre and the edge. That in turn would mean
that the ratio of height to width of the field of view woul d be 4:3.

As someone else pointed out the 'rule of thirds' (1.333) is really an
approximation the Golden ratio R=(1+root(5))/2 = 1.218, which is, as
a matter of interest, the limit of the Finbonnaci series ratios.

if the nose blocked the field so that that 'ahead' was at the golden
ratio of the width then it turns out that the ratio of height to width
is also the golden ratio.

A square picture with its cornbers placed on tghe edge of the whole
visual field (both eyes) would have its 'eyes' ('rule of thirds'
points) at the edge of the stereo visual region and that region would
be in the Golden ratio.

I've never seen this mentioned in any book on art. Has anyone else?

That's because I truly thought it up out of nowhere in the 60 seconds after
reading the OP.
-When I write my first book, I'll send you a copy.
g

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Colin_D wrote:
TheDave© wrote:
Yeah, yeah, I know, rules are made to be broken, be creative, think
outside the box, it doesn't always work, for every rule there's an
exception, yada yada yada... but, it's still a much-taught and
accepted "rule".

What makes it work?

The answers are probably as subjective as any other subject, but one
thing I can think of is context. It gives many photos context, while
at the same time not just throwing the main subject out there in a
"sea of nothing" as a photo quite often feels when the main subject
is blandly placed in the middle.


One internationally famous photographer, Freeman Patterson, refers to
that maxim as 'a tool of thirds', planting the idea that it is a tool
to be used when appropriate rather than a 'rule' to be slavishly
followed.

Sure... But it's certainly a method that "works" for some reason, which is
what the OP is curious about...
His question is simply, "Why does it work as well as it does?"
It's an interesting thought, which I took an off-the-cuff stab at (see my
other odd post).


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson