Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,141
- Location
- one nation under sony
Photography cheat sheet
- Thread starter ThestigGT999
- Start date
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,141
- Location
- one nation under sony
The ones in the link are better
I'll bite, what's wrong with it as a general 'rule of thumb' that has been used in composition since long before the invention of photography?
Its terrible because a lot of beginners think that is pretty much all there is to composition and will stop thinking and learning, let alone he fact that for a vast majority of occasions it simply isn't that great. Too many landscape shots that have something like 1/3rd of the frame as boring sky etc.
Composition is a far more complex subject. Such 'rules' have greatly limited peoples abilities.
EDIT: here is just one article on the subject:
http://petapixel.com/2016/01/30/10-myths-about-the-rule-of-thirds/
Its very damaging, I have wasted years of my photography life by following that rule, and I'm spending years unlearning it and trying to understand the structure of the world I see through the viewfinder and how the mind will interpret shapes, geometry, contrast, color, patterns, balance, space.
Last edited:
well this wqas very interesting reading! i hgave had my camera for a while now as it originally was bought for my husband to take photos of our first child..... well im thge one using it and i have constantly been trying to follow rules and this rule of third... as i wanted really good pictures etc etc.. i stopped using the camera after a while and only when i wanted better quality on them.... becuse.... when i used my phone i took photos in a different way not "trying" so hard and always ended up with faboulus results..
well i guess i know why now..
I think the problem arises from calling anything a "rule". This can only lead to bad places because some people will think they have to diligently follow the rules to ensure success, others will think they must deliberately break them, because that's what rules are for. Both approaches lead to mediocrity.
Obviously there's lots of tips, guidelines and techniques which are useful for photographers and artists to be aware of. It helps if you understand what the principles are, even if you then choose to ignore them, or modify them for your own uses.
Ultimately good subject matter, good lighting and a good feel for composition are what really count. Sticking to rules or deliberately breaking them are no replacement for that.
Obviously there's lots of tips, guidelines and techniques which are useful for photographers and artists to be aware of. It helps if you understand what the principles are, even if you then choose to ignore them, or modify them for your own uses.
Ultimately good subject matter, good lighting and a good feel for composition are what really count. Sticking to rules or deliberately breaking them are no replacement for that.
Well I agree to an extent. there are lots of "rules' in photogrpahy, and typically I defend them very strongly under the caveat that rules can be broken anytime you want if you know what you are doing and know why breaking the rule will improve your photo. The additional clause is important because too many people think that they can simply ignore thousands of years of artists contributions to aesthetics and human visual cognition and get better results than Rembrandt, Picasso or Da Vinci "by being spontaneous" or "thinking outside the box".
There are many solid rules in photography, e.g. if you want the sharpest possible photograph then use a FF camera (or bigger sensor), tripod mount, mirro locked up, remote release, prime lens stopped down 2-3 stops form wide open, a cold morning with weak sun, no wind, hyperfocal focusing through live view etc. All solid advice and objectively will give the best results. Any one of those steps may be broken, with consequences. Perhaps you need mroe DoF and so you stop down further inducing diffraction. Maybe you use a zoom lens for convenience. maybe you can only afford an APS-C camera. etc. etc.
The problem with the rule of thirds is is almost always bad advice. The rule can't be fixed by adding a few caveats here and there. It is a gross over simplification of the single most complex aspect of photography.
I mean for starters humans like symmetry and visual balance, so breaking that by itself typically leads to poor aesthetics. Point 4 in the link I posted above covers this well.
I think it is just 1 rule that is especially damaging for beginners because it leads them to ignore the fundamental complexity of photography and the keys to artistic success. I'm very guilty of just brushing aside composition with the "keep it out of center" mentality than the rule of threads supposedly affords. I hope to send the rest of my life understanding composition.
I would the article is just a guide as rule of thirds applies to some or most shots, however the issues comers from what is the subject matter. As not all photos fit into the 'normal' rules.
I took a class last year to fill in my home grown knowledge mainly from reading article, watching YouTube and just chatting to other people with DSLR's.
Then one evening the lecture just mention that the rules apply for certain shots that require a particular brief ( i.e from a client, or competition for example ), then his next comment was that you decide what the angle, compositions is as you are the artist !
(weddings is a good example of set structure with an element of free style )
He went on to mention that some of his best photos do not always follow the normal rules !
SO really the choice is yours on what you think is good angle for the shoot even though some will like it and some will not. That to me is a good think as it provokes discussion which you can use in future shoots. Go with what people like and enjoy from your photos as you will soon realise what does and doesn’t work.