The History of "The Rule of Thirds"(neomodern.com)
neomodern.com
The History of "The Rule of Thirds"
https://www.neomodern.com/rot
19 comments
this isn't about 'annally precise"!
Saying the Golden Mean is "about" 1/3 is like saying "it's not the rule of thirds it's the rule of Pi, since Pi is 'about' three, we'll say the frame should be divided 1/Pi" yes, it's about the same thing, but it's so unrelated and so absurd to use it that way, it's misleading.
I often wonder what role snobbery plays in the acceptance or formation of these kinds of rules.
An amateur would simply point their camera at the subject, and be done with it. To show that one has actually read a book on art, or at least thought about this for a minute, one can use the rule of thirds, or the golden ratio. Given enough guts, one can then proceed to the next level of reverse psychology by simply placing the subject in the center again, as Diane Arbus and Rineke Dijkstra do.
The fact that the latter are quite successful, suggests that the rules are not fundamental.
Edit: Forgot to mention that the article is really nice!
An amateur would simply point their camera at the subject, and be done with it. To show that one has actually read a book on art, or at least thought about this for a minute, one can use the rule of thirds, or the golden ratio. Given enough guts, one can then proceed to the next level of reverse psychology by simply placing the subject in the center again, as Diane Arbus and Rineke Dijkstra do.
The fact that the latter are quite successful, suggests that the rules are not fundamental.
Edit: Forgot to mention that the article is really nice!
> I often wonder what role snobbery plays in the acceptance or formation of these kinds of rules.
Perhaps it's snobbery for some people, but there's definitely practical value in those rules, at least as far as painting is concerned: there's much less control with photography (unless it's digitally altered: we're getting closer to painting).
For example, when you put things slightly of center this creates room to induce a "flow" within the piece, pathways for the eyes, keeping the viewer engaged with the piece/animation (eyes are attracted by strong contrasts: by controlling the intensity and placement of the contrasts, the eyes can be more or less predictably guided).
Random reference: https://ebenschumacherart.com/learn-to-use-flow-in-your-art/
The main issue with composition rules is when they're applied too rigidly: they should be thought as general guidelines. The key is too be conscious of the general impact of some of those rules (e.g. horizontal => calmness), and apply them with intent.
Perhaps it's snobbery for some people, but there's definitely practical value in those rules, at least as far as painting is concerned: there's much less control with photography (unless it's digitally altered: we're getting closer to painting).
For example, when you put things slightly of center this creates room to induce a "flow" within the piece, pathways for the eyes, keeping the viewer engaged with the piece/animation (eyes are attracted by strong contrasts: by controlling the intensity and placement of the contrasts, the eyes can be more or less predictably guided).
Random reference: https://ebenschumacherart.com/learn-to-use-flow-in-your-art/
The main issue with composition rules is when they're applied too rigidly: they should be thought as general guidelines. The key is too be conscious of the general impact of some of those rules (e.g. horizontal => calmness), and apply them with intent.
I have a suspicion that "flow" (or visual movement) has similar snobist connotations :)
I'm not saying that snobbery in art is bad, by the way. I just couldn't find the right words for these concepts being social constructs, instead of related to fundamental workings of the brain.
I find it interesting to consider aspects of vision that we all share, i.e. those that are not learned at a later age. Op-art is not really my cup of tea, but contrast, visual hierarchy, symmetry, all play interesting roles in painting and photography.
I wonder if flow is one of those rudimentary visual skills, because I never experienced it before someone told me about it.
I'm not saying that snobbery in art is bad, by the way. I just couldn't find the right words for these concepts being social constructs, instead of related to fundamental workings of the brain.
I find it interesting to consider aspects of vision that we all share, i.e. those that are not learned at a later age. Op-art is not really my cup of tea, but contrast, visual hierarchy, symmetry, all play interesting roles in painting and photography.
I wonder if flow is one of those rudimentary visual skills, because I never experienced it before someone told me about it.
I think the contemporary visual "fine" art scene is responsible for quite some damage in how people conceptualize art; "snobbery" is not an unfair description. It's difficult from the outset to distinguish smoke and mirrors from the real thing.
Industries with more tangible economical grounds (e.g. comics, animation, advertisement) are usually better sources of knowledge as a result.
> I wonder if flow is one of those rudimentary visual skills, because I never experienced it before someone told me about it.
Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that it has never been experienced consciously: advertisement, movies, animated movies, all are designed with such ideas in mind.
Also, note that there can be "variants" on this idea of flow. For example, "unity in diversity" is a common composition principle, where you try find a balance between an excess of diversity (chaotic looking) and a lack of it (boring): this will encourage the creation of a few tied zones within a piece, and a "flow"/"eyes pathways" should naturally arise.
But even that principle of "unity in diversity" isn't always expressed in this way, sometimes it will arise from other notions (see the 5 principles of composition mentioned here [0]).
[0]: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45410/45410-h/45410-h.html#t...
Industries with more tangible economical grounds (e.g. comics, animation, advertisement) are usually better sources of knowledge as a result.
> I wonder if flow is one of those rudimentary visual skills, because I never experienced it before someone told me about it.
Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that it has never been experienced consciously: advertisement, movies, animated movies, all are designed with such ideas in mind.
Also, note that there can be "variants" on this idea of flow. For example, "unity in diversity" is a common composition principle, where you try find a balance between an excess of diversity (chaotic looking) and a lack of it (boring): this will encourage the creation of a few tied zones within a piece, and a "flow"/"eyes pathways" should naturally arise.
But even that principle of "unity in diversity" isn't always expressed in this way, sometimes it will arise from other notions (see the 5 principles of composition mentioned here [0]).
[0]: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45410/45410-h/45410-h.html#t...
I'm not sure how the article's authors didn't make the connection of the rule of thirds to the rule of threes. The rule of threes is an ancient idea (at least as old as the Romans, "omne trium perfectum", likely older) and is very clearly connected to the rule of thirds. This article is generally wrong about a lot of things which stems from this fundamental misunderstanding that the rule of thirds is somehow new.
How is the rule of threes connected to the rule of thirds?
Additional commentary from nature/landscape photographer Ansel Adams (who often placed the horizon one or two thirds up from the bottom of the frame, e.g. Moonrise, but also used many other approaches):
> "Are you tired of hearing about the rules of composition? So was Ansel Adams. ‘The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant, immaterial,’ he said. Rules of composition, such as the rule of thirds and golden ratio, are stale, predictable and boring. While they can certainly serve to create visually pleasing images, they can also stand to get in the way of creativity."
https://www.photocrowd.com/blog/197-how-shoot-ansel-adams/
> "Are you tired of hearing about the rules of composition? So was Ansel Adams. ‘The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant, immaterial,’ he said. Rules of composition, such as the rule of thirds and golden ratio, are stale, predictable and boring. While they can certainly serve to create visually pleasing images, they can also stand to get in the way of creativity."
https://www.photocrowd.com/blog/197-how-shoot-ansel-adams/
As similar complaint:
> "The rule of thirds is perhaps the greatest fallacy ever foisted upon the beginning photography student, a canard from lazy educators designed to give the impression that their ideas are based soundly in theory."
…and then asking why cinematography is taught differently: https://www.photo-mark.com/notes/rule-herds/
> "The rule of thirds is perhaps the greatest fallacy ever foisted upon the beginning photography student, a canard from lazy educators designed to give the impression that their ideas are based soundly in theory."
…and then asking why cinematography is taught differently: https://www.photo-mark.com/notes/rule-herds/
Sometimes rules/ideas are useful for specific stages or projects, but people tend to forget to be critical and decide for each project in particular the set of rules they want, and not to make out of them "axioms".
Related to artistic stuff, I think some modern art can be understood much better if you at least are aware (have seen / thought about / discussed) the older art. It's not like 19th century art is invalid or irrelevant - the relevance is also in the process and defining what came before and after, plus personal preferences.
Maybe the rules of thirds gets out of fashion, but might be still be useful for some projects, for understanding the evolution, or just because some people love it (like it's perfectly fine to like 19th century art compared to modern).
Related to artistic stuff, I think some modern art can be understood much better if you at least are aware (have seen / thought about / discussed) the older art. It's not like 19th century art is invalid or irrelevant - the relevance is also in the process and defining what came before and after, plus personal preferences.
Maybe the rules of thirds gets out of fashion, but might be still be useful for some projects, for understanding the evolution, or just because some people love it (like it's perfectly fine to like 19th century art compared to modern).
This was an interesting history, it seems like we actually kind of don't really get a clear answer or at least a clear villain. A lot of the discussion pieces from before 1950 seem to be talking as if the rule of thirds is widespread as informal advice, just that nobody is writing it down. And then the military manuals come in and they have to write all of this stuff down so they do?
I had a really great photography class in high school, complete with a dark room and developing our own negatives. When our teacher talked about the rule of thirds he phrased it in a very interesting fluid way, I only learned later that some people hear it as a much more rigid “this is how you have to compose” way.
He said, if you have multiple subjects in the painting, there are kind of natural lines between them, and because your eye moves from one to another, there is natural movement along those lines while the subjects themselves get kind of “anchored.” So like if you want to sell “busy street” you capture a beautiful house on the left and right, say, so that the eye is constantly moving along the busy street.
And then he said that if you only have one main subject, you have to decide whether you want it to be in motion or at rest. If you want it to seem still and fixed and kind of eternal, you put it at the center. Dead center is a place of balance, our eye is naturally drawn to it, if you put the subject in the center there will be no motion.
And only after all of that, he draws the rectangles and divides them into thirds both ways. And then continues, by putting something off center, on one of these lines, it gets a sense of motion towards the other 2/3rds of the photo since the background is expanding out in that direction. And especially at these four corners, there is a very strong diagonal motion towards the opposite corner. “So if I want to take a photo of someone walking into the great unknown, I place them at the bottom right corner and try to get the path snaking up this way, you get a real sense of movement then.”
Today I think that that makes it a little bit too scientific, I think things can look in motion in the center and static in the corners, so I think of it as just kind of a trick of the eye, I think it can be effective but I don't think it has to be that way. But it still made a good lasting impression on me.
I had a really great photography class in high school, complete with a dark room and developing our own negatives. When our teacher talked about the rule of thirds he phrased it in a very interesting fluid way, I only learned later that some people hear it as a much more rigid “this is how you have to compose” way.
He said, if you have multiple subjects in the painting, there are kind of natural lines between them, and because your eye moves from one to another, there is natural movement along those lines while the subjects themselves get kind of “anchored.” So like if you want to sell “busy street” you capture a beautiful house on the left and right, say, so that the eye is constantly moving along the busy street.
And then he said that if you only have one main subject, you have to decide whether you want it to be in motion or at rest. If you want it to seem still and fixed and kind of eternal, you put it at the center. Dead center is a place of balance, our eye is naturally drawn to it, if you put the subject in the center there will be no motion.
And only after all of that, he draws the rectangles and divides them into thirds both ways. And then continues, by putting something off center, on one of these lines, it gets a sense of motion towards the other 2/3rds of the photo since the background is expanding out in that direction. And especially at these four corners, there is a very strong diagonal motion towards the opposite corner. “So if I want to take a photo of someone walking into the great unknown, I place them at the bottom right corner and try to get the path snaking up this way, you get a real sense of movement then.”
Today I think that that makes it a little bit too scientific, I think things can look in motion in the center and static in the corners, so I think of it as just kind of a trick of the eye, I think it can be effective but I don't think it has to be that way. But it still made a good lasting impression on me.
Ehhhh I see what you mean…but I definitely think it’s useful to say to new people who know much less about this than you do “put the subject over here. It’s a rule.”
Then, some of them will progress to the point where they discover that there are no Thirds Police and have the accumulated judgment to frame their subject in a truly thoughtful way. :)
It’s like describing the world in terms of “three primary colors.” It’s wrong…in a useful way.
Then, some of them will progress to the point where they discover that there are no Thirds Police and have the accumulated judgment to frame their subject in a truly thoughtful way. :)
It’s like describing the world in terms of “three primary colors.” It’s wrong…in a useful way.
You have to know the rules to break the rules.
It's a good article, but I think you could sum it up neatly by saying "photographic masses search for photographic rules, come up empty." I've been doing amateur/hobbyist photography, as I suspect many here have as well, for quite some time.[0]
For a while, I followed the rule. But as a physics professor of mine once aptly put it, "Stop trying to look for a formula all the time. You have the tools to derive the formulas yourself." The rule of thirds, golden ratio, golden mean, golden doodle, whatever, are just hodge podge tools used by people who want to take a better pictures than the standard iphone eye-level shot (or the old Kodak 35mm point-and-click).
For example, nothing about this image follows the golden spiral. It just so happens that a backwards upside down golden spiral overlay fits neatly over it: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5978aa8103596e...
The image is interesting because of the curve of the street, the Escher-esque staircase, and the fact that a bicyclist in motion happens to be moving past the only dead area of the image.
And that gets to the main point: is the image interesting? If it's not an interesting image in the first place, no magic formula is going to fix it. That's where the creativity comes in. Find the non-obvious angle that gives the shot some interest, find a subject that's a little less obvious than the influencer instacrap wingspan shots, find a location that's a little off the beaten path. Do that 10,000 times and you'll train your eye and develop a unique style that can last you through life.
Burk Uzzle is famously quoted as saying "Photography is a love affair with life" and I wholeheartedly agree. Life is beautiful, so just get out there and shoot it. You don't need a formula to find the love in a good shot.
[0] ObPhotos (and speaking of instacrap): https://www.instagram.com/dphilippe/
For a while, I followed the rule. But as a physics professor of mine once aptly put it, "Stop trying to look for a formula all the time. You have the tools to derive the formulas yourself." The rule of thirds, golden ratio, golden mean, golden doodle, whatever, are just hodge podge tools used by people who want to take a better pictures than the standard iphone eye-level shot (or the old Kodak 35mm point-and-click).
For example, nothing about this image follows the golden spiral. It just so happens that a backwards upside down golden spiral overlay fits neatly over it: https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5978aa8103596e...
The image is interesting because of the curve of the street, the Escher-esque staircase, and the fact that a bicyclist in motion happens to be moving past the only dead area of the image.
And that gets to the main point: is the image interesting? If it's not an interesting image in the first place, no magic formula is going to fix it. That's where the creativity comes in. Find the non-obvious angle that gives the shot some interest, find a subject that's a little less obvious than the influencer instacrap wingspan shots, find a location that's a little off the beaten path. Do that 10,000 times and you'll train your eye and develop a unique style that can last you through life.
Burk Uzzle is famously quoted as saying "Photography is a love affair with life" and I wholeheartedly agree. Life is beautiful, so just get out there and shoot it. You don't need a formula to find the love in a good shot.
[0] ObPhotos (and speaking of instacrap): https://www.instagram.com/dphilippe/
I was hoping for a diving article...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds_(diving)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds_(diving)
The Rule of Thirds is like the rule of not starting your sentences with conjunctions (and, or, etc.) or DRY.
They're rules for newbies, but eventually experience should replace rules.
That doesn't mean the rules aren't wrong -- often following them makes sense stylistically.
I think a huge signal of inexperience is people who put rules on a pedestal (when doing work).
They're rules for newbies, but eventually experience should replace rules.
That doesn't mean the rules aren't wrong -- often following them makes sense stylistically.
I think a huge signal of inexperience is people who put rules on a pedestal (when doing work).
(from a quotation in the article) I hope we will never see the day when photo shops sell little schema grills to clamp onto our viewfinders
I have bad news for you about how cinematography has operated for decades, much as painters have used harmonic armature for centuries.
I have bad news for you about how cinematography has operated for decades, much as painters have used harmonic armature for centuries.
I always thought the rule of thirds was interesting, because often you could chop a photo down the center, and still get two semi-competent photographs.
If you want to be anally precise, sure. If you are just using it as a rule of thumb for where it is pleasing to put the subject of your composition, which covers a good quarter of the horizontal extent of your canvas, there is little difference in practice. Especially if your canvas’ proportions are close to the golden ratio.
Like every “rule” of art, it’s more of a guideline. Do this and your picture will probably come out better than if you don’t do it; if you’re going to break one rule or another, then break the fuck out of it and make sure you’re not breaking any other rules unintentionally.