Composition rules can be highly controversial in professional photography. For most photographers, this phrase seems very formal, suggesting that a subject as complex as photographic composition can be summed up in a few quick tips.
Thus, in an attempt to expose all the myths surrounding this topic, we will present in this article some of the most basic lessons of the school of photography in composition: the rule of the thirds.
- A brief warning: the rule of third party can be more frustrating than it probably should.
- So in this article you will find the rule of third party useful.
- But don’t take this article as an attack on your writing style.
- It is different and I fully support any method that helps you take the photos you like.
Most people who read this article already know the rule of thirds, which is simply a grid that divides a rectangle into nine equal parts, as shown below:
The rule of thirds is intended to be a guide to successful writing, suggesting placing the theme next to one of the four lines or, ideally, at one of the four intersection points.
It is easy to analyze certain photos to detect the presence of the third-party rule, especially those with a relatively small and obvious subject. If you take a photo of an isolated bird in flight, for example, it should be very easy to notice. whether the bird (or perhaps the bird’s eye) crosses one of the grids of the rule of the thirds.
Often, however, you may think that your theme is too big to fit into the grid, even if you technically cross a third. This problem seems to be more common for landscape or architecture photographers who deal with large themes or less defined objects, but certainly affects all genres.
What happens if you shoot an abstract scene or with multiple subjects?Is it really possible to compose a photo using the thirds rule?In fact, it can be very difficult if the subject is not relatively small or well defined, it is almost impossible to say if it fits the rule of thirds in the first place.
The thirds rule complicates his life as a photographer, especially when the main subject of the image cannot be framed, even if other areas of the image intersect with a vertical line drawn through the frame.
This is not a particularly unusual problem, almost every time you take a wide-angle photo of a forest, the rule of thirds can be adapted to the scene arbitrarily and confusingly.
In the previous section, we explain how easy it is to force a photo to comply with the rule of thirds, assuming that the subject is wide enough or vague enough, but what if the subject is easily definable and is just outside one of the lines??
There is a thin line between the rule of thirds of what appears to be the third-party rule, the further away it is from the 1/3 marks of the main subject of the photo, its image will become less obvious when using this rule and generating some confusion.
Irregular doughnut rule
To have this flexibility, the modified rule of the third-party grid recommends that you place the subject in the red zone, also known as a Blur rule or irregular doughnuts, indicates the positioning of your subject more or less in the red-shaped area ring.
This way, you shouldn’t have a problem convincing other photographers that your photo follows the rule of thirds.
Every rule has to allow exceptions, otherwise life would become very boring, right?The same goes for the third-party rule!
Sometimes you’ll want to compose your photo in a way that doesn’t correspond to the thirds rule. As a photographer, you have the last word on what your photo looks like, don’t be afraid to break the rules, if your photo is better otherwise.
The same goes for the irregular doughnut rule, it is generally recommended to place the main subject of the photo in one of these circles, but if the photo is better otherwise, do not be afraid to give up the rule.
Perhaps the big part of the thirds rule is that you can place the theme wherever you want on your board, in that case we have to fully agree with it.
Some photographers defend the rule of thirds, claiming that it is a useful learning tool for beginners, but over time good photographers will stop relying on it to compose their photos, the suggestion here is to learn the rule of thirds for then abandon it. .
Of all the arguments about the rule of third parties, there is one to pay close attention to: on some level, the rule of thirds is an easy way to enter photography, especially to see the power to compose a decentralized theme. .
Certainly, most beginners frame their photos with closely centered compositions, so the rule of thirds helps these photographers realize that the frame of the off-center subject can be as beautiful or more beautiful than you probably think.
On the other hand, if you want to teach beginner photographers that non-centered compositions can be beautiful, why not say it?Since the rule of thirds is an intermediary between novices and their knowledge of decentralized compositions, I do not see why it is necessary to do so many tricks to achieve a single goal.
Helping beginners think creatively is not an easy task, but what method would be most effective, teach them to take the rule of thirds based on photos or tell them to take pictures where the subject is turned off?Both would have a similar effect, but one is much more limiting than the other.
So instead of teaching novice photographers to overcome the rule of thirds, why not just encourage them to learn it?In particular, the rule of third parties may be too complicated to understand and, above all, to abandon it later.
All this talks about the rule of thirds, and I still mention your infamous cousin: the gold number. The gold number of 1,618: 1 is an approximation of the following:
1/2 (1? 5)
This number is important due to the Fibonacci sequence, where each next number is the sum of the previous two: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, and so on. You divide a Fibonacci number given by the previous one, you are closer to the gold number, for example, 89/55 to 1618.
Some often say that the third-party rule is a simplification of this amount of gold, so it “works”. But is that it? We’ll see two points you can change your mind about.
One: if the rule of thirds is an approximation of the number of gold, it is not totally foolproof.
In your DSLR camera, composition grids divide the frame into thirds, rather than the golden number, not to mention that this additional grid makes the composition even more complex and ambiguous.
Two: it probably doesn’t mean anything at all
I know this issue is controversial. After all, the gold number appears all the time in nature, doesn’t it?And if the Greeks used this number as the basis of the Parthron, it must have an intrinsic value.
Unfortunately, the answer is probably no.
As an example, consider two of the most popular claims of the golden number: it appears in galactic spirals and nativity shields. Although both examples generally follow the logarithmic spiral, the gold number is only a unique case of this expansion, the specific angles of galaxies or layers are rarely the same as those of the golden spiral, in part because galaxies and layers already differ from each other.
If spiral galaxies do not have the same angles, how could they be modeled on the amount of gold?The details are too specific to be covered here, but you can read more about the logarithmic spiral on Wikipedia.
Golden number is an interesting mathematical law, but I see no reason to have an effect on the human perception of natural beauty, as it does not appear very often in the natural world.
Even the Partnón does not include the golden number, despite the photos you have seen, it is possible to overlay almost the entire rectangle on the Parton and pretend that it magically adapts to the desired proportion. Is there enough? along the Parton, but the most obvious rectangle has a ratio of exactly 9:4, or 2. 25. That’s a long way from the 1,618 gold count, you know, okay?
However, it should be noted that the amount of gold is presented in some corners of the natural world, or at least in the Fibonacci sequence. For example, when a leaf spirals around a stem, it often rotates in a fraction of a circle that can be expressed with two Fibonacci numbers, such as 1/2 or 5/13, but still, this spiral is not the same as the gold number, it uses only two numbers in the same sequence.
The spirals in general are beautiful, which makes it easy to assume that it is the number of gold, no doubt, because of its pleasant appearance, but you have to agree that there is a big difference between them and there is no concrete evidence of how they work.
Ironically, the rule of thirds appears much more often in nature and is more common than all others, at least in animals. Does this mean that the ratio of 1/2 is inherently more beautiful than the ratio of, for example, 17/23?? Honestly, there’s no certainty that this is really a logical question.
Yes, of course, this whole article is too technical. Every photographer understands that the value of a photo has nothing to do with its correspondence with an arbitrary grid of third parties, and I would be surprised to find someone who thinks otherwise. Similarly, I know that most people agree that the best way to compose a photo is to know the changes based on the specific scene versus the digital camera.
The danger is that photographers will use the default rule of third parties, this habit paves the way for careless compositions, leaving the theme aside, even when a centered composition would be better, for example, although all photographers know that the rule can be broken, some rarely use this knowledge.
So I think it’s a bad long-term idea to teach the rule of thirds as a cornerstone of composition. The third-party rule can show a beginner the power to disconnect, but it loses value when it limits a photographer’s creative process, which happens. each time you actively consider using the rule for a particular photo. Or not.
The thirds rule can make you want to consciously follow or break it, limiting your creativity almost by definition.
I want someone to teach basic composition, not to mention the rule of thirds, as if it didn’t exist. While it’s good to think you can improve your compositions with a simple trick like this, an easy solution never works in the long run. Run.
Eventually, go beyond the basics of composition, you won’t have the option to crisscross the intangible. So why do they obstruct this process with the rules of reducing creativity?
If all this is not enough to argue, think of this last point: the rule of thirds is the best way to compose your images like everyone else. Even if the rule has no special properties, the value of unrestricted visual creativity is impossible to ignore. .
Do you agree or disagree? Leave your comment on the topic and how you use the thirds rule in your work, in the field below.