burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I agree. A 50% split can work if there are other compositional elements to make a scene flow and breathe, but more often than not, I avoid centered horizons.

sxrich

I refer to "geometric shapes" and yes, incorporating multiple compositional approaches is great. It requires a certain level of discipline, knowledge, vision etc.

(Download)

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

How much better it would be if newcomers to photography were guided to research and learn the Principles and Elements of Design and Composition, rather than being pointed only to abbreviated, segregated, partial bits and pieces of the Principles and Elements of Design and Composition laid out as "rules". The progress/success factor for the newbies would be improved greatly, methinks.
How the Principles and Elements work together, producing the overall visual/artistic appeal of the entire unit of the photograph, would be much a better approach than the segmented, segregated emphasis on particular "rules" divorced from the overall cohesion needed among all the contributing factors to an attention-arresting photo.

Maybe it is a strange comparison, but it sort of seems like many people "learn" photography the way a teen would "learn" to drive an automobile by repeatedly being instructed "step on the gas pedal, step on the gas pedal, step on the gas pedal" from one instructor, while the next instructor repeatedly drones "step on the clutch pedal, step on the clutch pedal, step on the clutch pedal" and the next instructor repeatedly harps "turn on the wipers, turn on the wipers, turn on the wipers" ......but.....finally the frustrated teen finds an absolutely wonderful instructor who adheres to the mantra "break all the rules, break all the rules, break all the rules". (Actually, going by some of the ridiculous moves seen on public roadways, maybe many people did "learn" to drive by a method like that.)

For most of us, it is so much more difficult to unlearn poor habits than to learn good/great, comprehensive photography from the start, methinks.

sxrich

That's sad! A professor who can't handle a disciplined approach LOL! A little story for you. A colleague who was shooting real estate was taking a photography course at a local 4 yr university. Her professor was attemting to teach the exposure triangle. My friend was struggling to capture sharp images i.e, the effect of shutter speed etc. She gave her professor her camera and asked her to try an image. A blurry image again. The professor said she didn't know why. Well, the AF motor was malfunctioning when I tried her camera!!!!! A professor who should never have been in front of a classroom. I was shocked.

tommystrat Loc: Bigfork, Montana

What is pleasing to one eye may not be pleasing to another. That's what is so awesome about this pursuit called photography.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You don't win the game by getting disqualified for breaking the rules.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

There's a reason why people keep saying the so-called rule of thirds is a guideline rather than a rule. Take any of the so-called rules and there will be multiple times when they either don't apply or can be broken to good effect. The term "rule" implies inflexibility - which is inappropriate for several reasons. And when we start to accept these "rules" as being absolute there's a danger that they'll inhibit our creativity and willingness to experiment.

In the case of the rule of thirds I think its strength and true nature lie in the fact that it provides a safe option that steers us away from breaking several of the other less obvious rules such as "don't have your main subject/s too close to the edge of the image", "don't have your main subject/s in the exact centre of the image", "don't have your horizon exactly half way up the image" etc. There's nothing magical about placing things exactly on the lines or intersections - just getting them close will achieve the desired result. That's because the lines represent a safe zone for placement, as described above.

The main strength of the rule of thirds is that it can provide simple guidance for beginners to steer them away from making common beginner mistakes. As an aside, I don't see centring your subject as a mistake unless you're doing it in all of your photos, and sometimes the steps we take to avoid centring a subject can themselves look like mistakes. Apart from that, sometimes the centre is exactly the right place for a subject. To that I could add that sometimes only a slight shift away from the centre is enough and a move to one of the thirds would be too much.

sxrich

In order to have a functioning society, there are rules. Prisons are full of people who break all the "rules". A level of maturity applies.

sxrich

LOL!

tschuler

Best post yet.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

We’ll I guess your photos just look good (because you are following the rules)
😀😀😀

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Nice example!

At what point does the combination of "discipline, knowledge, vision, etc." just become that "je ne sais quoi" that we call, "photographer?" Does it take Malcolm Gladwell's infamous 10,000 hours? Or is it 10,000 images? Or is it owning ten cameras?

I'm not really asking, I'm writing rhetorically, here. There is always a process of *becoming* that is more than just learning simple concepts. Here is an example of a favorite model I used for corporate training in a portrait photography company:

Introduction (topical overview)
Education (a "drawing out" or development of an acute, motivating interest in the subject matter)
Demonstration (teaching by accessible example)
Instruction (instilling the structure of processes and procedures into accepting, impressionable minds)
Training and Review (guided practice in a "safe" environment, with feedback to shape performance to a standard)
Competency Demonstration (students prove their *performance*, still in the "safe" environment)
Testing (students prove their *understanding*, to identify and fill knowledge gaps)
Guided Performance (students go to work with experienced partners)
Independent Performance (students go to work on their own)
Periodically Repeat the Steps ("sharpen the saw")

It is possible to internalize this method, as college students generally learn to do.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Some teachers simply teach theory.

I knew the guy who invented the shock-absorbing bumper.
But he had no idea on how to replace a light switch.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Indeed. Especially if the learning process included not just the principles but also when the principles can be broken to good effect.

For example, visual balance is probably the most basic concept in composition, but for a more powerful understanding of that subject one needs to bring it to completion it by learning the concept of deliberate imbalance. A mind that's familiar with both concepts and competent in their implementation is perfectly placed to develop a holistic and intuitive grasp of composition.

Of course the learning curve doesn't stop there. Whatever concept or principle you can think of there will be times when the opposite can be done to good effect. But to pull it off you need a good understanding of the original concept or principle and also its opposite. Breaking the "rules" without that level of understanding can, and often does, result in something that looks like a mistake.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

We probably all had the math teacher who could not spell well enough to put coherent "word problems" on weekly tests...

A good instructor/teacher/trainer will find the answer after class to a problem she can't solve in class, and get back to the student. Maybe she'll present it to the class if it's of universal relevance.

There is little excuse to not knowing something in your field in the age of the Internet! You just have to understand the difference between a secondary source and a primary source, and find the primaries to confirm or discredit the secondaries. Unfortunately, over a third of humans have no clue how to do that.