Violating The Rule of Thirds (Page 2): Boy howdy!

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

AzPicLady wrote:

Be sure you're not standing on a cliff when following these directions!

Boy howdy!

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

dadbecker wrote:

Left to right...One third trees/grass...one third rocks...one third sand.
Bottom to top...beach...water...sky.
Looks great to me. Nice picture.

That's the way I saw it. Nice picture.

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

Just Fred wrote:

I've tried to think how the Rule of Thirds would improve this photo, and don't believe it would. Agree or disagree?

I don't know about others but when I walk out on a beach to near the waters edge and look at the horizon it's right across the middle of the scene. Same on a totally flat land area, such as a prairie. So that's usually how I shoot such scenes but have been soundly criticized for it by a friend who is a landscape photographer.

So to me what the human eye sees naturally in this case contradicts the "rule" of thirds, or at least this part of it. As others have said, I don't regard this is a "rule" but rather just one type of composition. I know that for many, such as my friend, this contradicts the Traditional Wisdom.

I like your composition with the horizon across the middle of the scene, it looks natural to my eye, and that's the way I would have shot it. A very nice scene.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Actually, it sort of does. Basically, there’s a bottom third, a middle third, and a top third. Also, there’s a left third and a right two-thirds. There’s a lot more to the rule of thirds than simply putting a center of interest at a crash point.

It’s a really nice photo, by the way, with leading lines, a curve effect, etc. I wouldn’t change a thing. Good work!

StevenG Loc: Long Island, NY

dadbecker wrote:

Left to right...One third trees/grass...one third rocks...one third sand.
Bottom to top...beach...water...sky.
Looks great to me. Nice picture.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"at very low opacity, clone some cloud detail into the blown white areas." I could not agree more with Linda and Bob. The horizon line is dividing the image in two equal parts. The trees on the left are at one of the intersections of the "rule of thirds." I would darken the foreground sand just a bit to bring more attention to the beautiful background.
It is a very beautiful image. Some minor adjustments should make it spectacular. I hope you like my version of it.

(Download)

NikonGal Loc: Central Oregon

I consider the Rule of Thirds only a Guide of Thirds. I feel it's more important to arrange the elements inside your viewfinder to support your center of interest as it pertains to the story you want to tell. Bev

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

As for the "Rule of Thirds" improving the photo. I'd guess that it depends on the photographer's reason for the photo. If the idea is to show the sky as the subject, or the beach area as the subject, then yes, the photo could be improved by the rule o thirds. As it stands, the photo as posted is a worthy interpretation of the scene. Placing the horizon on the top thirds line or the bottom thirds line could probably produce a photo just as worthy but each with a different story.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

"Rules" are made to be broken.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Just Fred wrote:

I've tried to think how the Rule of Thirds would improve this photo, and don't believe it would. Agree or disagree?

Rule? What rules? We doan need no steenkin rules.

Seriously, your composition works fine just the way it is.

bertloomis Loc: Fort Worth, Texas

I agree. It would not help. It's a nice photo.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If someone here does not believe in the rule of thirds and photographic composition send an image to a competition and let's see what happens. If the image is for your personal use and the way it is is the way you like it so be it.

Just Fred Loc: Darwin's Waiting Room

camerapapi wrote:

"at very low opacity, clone some cloud detail into the blown white areas." I could not agree more with Linda and Bob. The horizon line is dividing the image in two equal parts. The trees on the left are at one of the intersections of the "rule of thirds." I would darken the foreground sand just a bit to bring more attention to the beautiful background.
It is a very beautiful image. Some minor adjustments should make it spectacular. I hope you like my version of it.

Thank you, you beat me to it.

Nice work!

blackest Loc: Ireland

camerapapi wrote:

If someone here does not believe in the rule of thirds and photographic composition send an image to a competition and let's see what happens. If the image is for your personal use and the way it is is the way you like it so be it.

Composing an image is important without a doubt, but the rule of thirds is not the only or the best way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7fahM5sBQ

Have a look at the video, it's not long.

It's not a choice between a jumbled mess v the rule of thirds, however thinking outside of the rule of thirds may be difficult and take much more thought than just line things up with the thirds grid and it's good.

Interested in going further? then this site may be useful
http://www.dynamicsymmetryart.com/

The site is for artists and photographers, the only trouble with it is Artists get to choose where to put things, typically the photographer doesn't and so when things line up its more of an after the fact thing rather than planned. On the other hand if you can recognise the pattern in existing images you might recognise it in a scene intuitively.

I'm not 100% convinced but the site is persuasive and i'm going to study the materials and see if it helps.

photophile Loc: Lakewood, Ohio, USA

Just Fred wrote:

I've tried to think how the Rule of Thirds would improve this photo, and don't believe it would. Agree or disagree?

Looks fine the way it is.