What makes the "Rule of Thirds" work?

Donal wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 06:29:28 GMT, 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.


I remember the psychological aspects being explained during a
psychology lecture but because my interests were divided, the bird
next to me and forensic psychology I didn't take much in. I sometimes
wish I had paid a little bit more attention to that part of the
lecture! I still remember the girl and our moments together so time
wasn't exactly wasted.

Donal.

Sorry for being off topic, but your post is so very touching. You can
always go back and learn about the psycholigcial aspects that you
missed, ie: library, other lectures, but those memories you have made
with someone special is absolutely priceless. I know exactly how you
feel. I have such precious memories of someone special that will never
be forgotten. And I still feel the same as I did.
s. i. b. w. y. i. l., a chore w. y. a. n.
Helen

"Robert" wrote:


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.


Wrong again, Robert. g

The Rule of Thirds is 2.00 (larger/smaller) and 1.50 (whole/larger).

The Golden Ratio is 1.618 and 1.618 respectively. The fact that the
two ratios are the same is what makes it "Golden".

And the fact that the numbers for the Rule of Thirds differ show that
it is a poor approximation - a waste of people's time, I would say.

;-)

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?

Same thing that makes any "rule of thumb" work ... however,
alternatively, consider the "Golden Ratio".

http://www.colorpilot.com/comp_rules.html

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.


1:1.618

Pudentame 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?

Same thing that makes any "rule of thumb" work ... however,
alternatively, consider the "Golden Ratio".

http://www.colorpilot.com/comp_rules.html

You might as well ask what makes "sweet" work; that's physical,
chemical sweet, not yesterday's twee slang for "cool".

I've read (ancient, relatively) studies showing rats preferred sugar
water over plain water, and that they preferred saccharined water over
plain water, even though saccharine has no nutritional value. Same
kind of thing operating in "thirds" and "Golden", my view: it just
feels good, y'know?

--
Frank ess
"In this universe there are things
that just don't yield to thinking
-plain or fancy-Dude".
-J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson

Frank ess wrote:
Pudentame 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?

Same thing that makes any "rule of thumb" work ... however,
alternatively, consider the "Golden Ratio".

http://www.colorpilot.com/comp_rules.html

You might as well ask what makes "sweet" work; that's physical, chemical
sweet, not yesterday's twee slang for "cool".

I've read (ancient, relatively) studies showing rats preferred sugar
water over plain water, and that they preferred saccharined water over
plain water, even though saccharine has no nutritional value. Same kind
of thing operating in "thirds" and "Golden", my view: it just feels
good, y'know?

In a vague way, I remember reading that it has something to do with the
mathematics that describe how the universe is "constructed".

TheDave© wrote in :

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.


This is something I've pondered many times in the past, without
getting too far on it, but I have several ideas I've been kicking around.
What I suspect now is that it may not be any one thing, but a convergence
of similar theories.

Part of the way I've explained using thirds in a photo is by saying,
"A centered subject simply says, 'Here is this flower,' while an off-center
subject says, 'Here is a scene featuring this flower'." It puts a subject
in the perspective of the surroundings, and often implies a direction of
attention.

For people, someone directly in front of you in confrontational,
demanding attention. It's dominance. Off to one side implies the freedom of
movement, of escape, of non-confrontation.

Most of our perception of people is on the upper half to third of
their body, especially at closer range. Farther out, where we can see their
entire body, they take up far less of our field of vision and we tend to
place them in a surrounding. Human vision and posture is slightly angled
forward and down, so people tend to take up roughly two thirds of our field
of view (vertically) when a short distance away. The horizon also
frequently falls roughly two-thirds up from the bottom of our field of view
- we're more interested in what we'll trip over than what's in the sky.

I suspect some matters of perspective, relying on our height as a
species and having binocular vision (as Mark implies), may break things
down that way too.

We're also sensitive over head-banging, so we don't like photos that
crowd too close to the head, and we tend to leave space above just to feel
comfortable.

[I'm skipping around here a bit - these are just items that occurred
to me at one time or another]. While eyes are actually centered in the head
vertically, we don't perceive them that way - we concentrate on the
features of the face, not the higher forehead and hair details, so our
perception is that the eyes fall about two-thirds of the way up the face,
and of course, two eyes split the face into thirds. Again, this is rough
and requires counting the ears - otherwise the eyes are much closer to the
edges of the face when seen straight on.

Objects placed in the thirds of our field of view are easy to reach,
easy to focus on. Our arms are to the sides, but objects closer to center
allow for better balance. Reaching out to the side for heavy objects
requires counterbalancing or bracing, so we prefer to work closer in. Look
at where your computer mouse is, and watch where you place your drinking
glass. Ergonomics. Home keys on the keyboard - both hands in use, with the
ability to work to both sides.

An object, such as a tree, two-thirds across the image and two-thirds
high, comes close to touching a line that stretches diagonally across
opposite corners of the rectangular frame (which begs a question: Do people
that shoot square format as a matter of habit fudge the thirds points a lot
more?). A lot of photos 'work' for us by showing or implying lines building
from the corners. Couldn't tell you what it means, really, except it is
also a typical range of motion for our arms reaching across our bodies
(instead of straight out - left arm reaching for objects to the right and
vice-versa).

So, in short, I think that a confluence of factors make us feel
"comfortable" with things in certain places in our field of view, and we
compose images in this way.

This could mean that flies have a Rule of Eightieths... ;-)


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Tony Polson wrote:

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.

Hmm so se need a Golden Section focusing screen grid. And a button to
flip, rotate & mirror it :-)

Paul Furman wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

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.

Hmm so se need a Golden Section focusing screen grid. And a button to
flip, rotate & mirror it :-)


I already have one. ;-)

Colin_D wrote:

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.

I explained this clearly to Polson about 5 years ago. He didn't get it
then and he ain't gonna get it now... for some reason he seemed to
believe that the rule of thirds was 2:1 in ratio. Given his poor math,
it's no surprise. I also pointed out (several times) that it was a
guide, not a rule, but he obsessed in labeling me a slave to the "rule".

He can sure write, but he can't read worth a damn!

There is nothing wrong with the rule of thirds, but my variants a
"it's more likely to better off center" and

"where there are two strong elements in the scene, a diagonal connection
through the frame makes a strong statement."

Paterson is correct: these are all tools, guides, notions, hints,
reminders, etc.

Cheers,
ALan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.