rob s Loc: La Mesa, CA

Yes! - and it would be useful to know who holds their work in high regard! The world is full of people who offer definitive opinions based on little personal talent.

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

A wise and in sightful gentleman! :)

PhotoDeb Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

Thanks for this important conversation. I haven't made it through all the comments, so I hope I'm not being repetitive,
I think this is an even larger question about how we critique art.
My philosophy in evaluating photography is this:
Rule of thirds is not essential to good composition.
What I don't generally see people talking about and what I look for first are planes. The roots of photographic composition are in painting and good painting relies heavily on planes. Whether I am looking at the work of Cezanne or Steve McCurry I first look at planes. The 4.3 million Gursky photograph, at its roots was about planes. There is not a credible gallery here that will exhibit the work of someone who hasn't mastered planes.
After that I look at lines. What are the strong lines in this photograph and how do they work in the overall geometry and balance of the composition? William Eggleston's photographs at first glance don't look like much, but he has an art background and a tight mastery of line and plane that I have not seen equaled. Look at this Cezanne - he diagrammed it carefully before he ever touched a brush. (Cezanne did use the rule of thirds and is often used as an example of this, but he also violated it freely.)
Then come tone and color. Is there a push-pull effect where the color and tone cause part of the photograph to come forward and part to recede? How is color sprinkled throughout the composition? Is the tone evenly balanced? Are there complementary colors going on?
These are some of the things I think about when I look at photographs and when I take a photograph. Rule of thirds is one aspect of composition, but an understanding how and why to violate it is the sign of an artist.
My two cents...

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

Many of the upper level courses in college would issue weekly assignments. On Friday for instance, each student, one at a time, would place their 11X 14 mount boards on a rail across the front of the room. Then a free-for-all would ensue. For the most part we were juniors or seniors and more or less knew each other. When those courses began (like this place) we were a bit edgy...sometimes nervous about really telling what we thought...but it didn't take long before we just "let it all hang out." I can remember being really pissed a few times. But here is the truth folks...and trust me...I am bona fide...within a short time we became vicious, back biting, killer reviewers of each others work. I mean nasty...sometimes yelling...but at the end of the session we all understood we were trying to help each other. Eventually we really looked forward to the Friday critiques by students and the prof alike.
AND...WE ALL LEARNED FROM THEM AND GAINED FROM THEM. I now look back and realize what a great learning experience those sessions were. If you can't stand the heat...don't throw your bacon in the fire. And if someone here wants to be a jerk...just wait till their work is on the wall...

neil43

Nicely put. (I would value your thoughts much higher than two cents.) You give voice to ideas I've been expressing in this thread, namely that knowledge is an essential tool for developing one's potential. Although we shouldn't feel shackled to "rules," understanding some of the theory behind what makes a piece of art effective is very helpful. The "rule" of thirds has been much maligned here, when in fact it is only one of many ways to organize a picture plane.

I love that you used the famous Cezanne example of mixed perspective, where the fruit plate is in danger of falling off the table. (I wonder if mixed perspective is possible in photography without resorting to Photoshop contortions?)

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I for one have benefited from reading about this concept of thirds. I set stone and marble for 23 yrs, so when I started using a camera, Every Single shot was Centered. Most of the architects drawings that I was paid to follow required everything to be centered. IMO, Architecture looks more balanced when centered, there are exceptions to every rule. My point is if I had not read this rules of thirds I would still be centering all of my shots when in fact at least 30% of my Stone work was not centered but balance because not all homes, condos, pool decks, ect. are laid out centered or balanced. I had the ability in my work to balance and not center but had never applied to photos. Balance IMO applies above all else when taking photos. With the rule of thirds now learned, thank goodness I read about this,I can now balance my photos better than before.

PokerInsider Loc: Las Vegas, NV, USA

Sorry to say I did not read all 15 pages of comments, so someone else may have mentioned this. I learned of the rule of thirds after about 15 years of taking pictures. What surprised me as I went back over my older pictures was how often I framed my composition that way without knowing I should have. So is it a criticism of my 'eye' that I found pictures looked nice when positioned this way? Just asking...
As another point, look at your TV or movie screen and see how often the rule of thirds is used by professional cinematographers. Guess they should be caned for using something that more often than not actually does produce a pleasing composition.
I do agree with much of what I read in that you should first learn the rules that place us in the box to give us a sense of when it is best to go outside the box.

3Dean Loc: Southern California

I've not heard of this before. Can you provide an example, or a link to a website that explains "planes"?

ab7rn Loc: Portland, Oregon

As composition goes, any "rule" should vbge seen as a guide only, not a hard and fast rule. Art is judged by the effect on the viewer.

forbescat

What a great image! That splash of color and the interruption of the design - great eye!

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

PhotoDeb said in part, "first glance don't look like much, but he has an art background and a tight mastery of line and plane that I have not seen equaled." Yes, well that's good, I would not like to equal it!! I looked critically at Cezanne and there was triangulation which was a style repeated thru out the work I viewed in addition to his coloration technique. Gursky loved a great theme of parallel and intersecting lines, he loved lines. These two I liked. See those lines and you know it is a Gursky.

Here we see that if you are Cezanne your technique and coloration is readily recognizable. I had a friend,Art, photography professor David F. Sauer, his painting were at the time I knew him recognizable ,, Lily pads and frogs were always in the scene. People right away knew it was David's. work.

The message I want to make to all is if you make the same photo over and over, in different times and places with differing objects the public and fellow photographers get to know that it is your work. Eventually your "mistakes" become your norm and accepted not as mistakes rather as themes.

neil43

The so-called "rule" of thirds has evolved as a concept of beauty for the very reason you imply, it has a natural appeal.

Camerahand Loc: Huntsville, Tennessee

First of all, English Wolf, let me say that I LOVE A GOOD FIRESTORM!! I would love to disagree with you, but I can't.

I suppose a photographer who earns his/her living at this business must produce what other people like. That's fine with me. BUT, if you don't have to do that, like what you shoot and shoot what you like. If you want to shoot it upside down and tilted, go fer it. Most of mine are like that.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Dear Tom,

They needn't necessarily be photographers. In some ways, I'd value the opinion of a gallery owner, or an editor, or a picture-library proprietor, more than that of a fellow photographer.

After all, you have to decide what you want from a critique. From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20critique.html

"Are you asking if you have the right material for an exhibition? Or a book? Or for seeking a bursary? Or do you want advice on how to tackle a theme? Or how to present your pictures? Or how to approach a publisher?

Obviously, some critics can give you better advice in some areas than others (see ii below) but unless they have some idea of what you want, they will have considerable difficulty in helping you. Putting your portfolio down and saying "What do you think?" is no help to the critic -- and if he is going to help you, you have to help him."

and (from the ii mentioned above)

"A newspaper picture editor is going to give you different advice from a picture librarian, and an advertising photographer will give you different advice from a photojournalist. Any of them can probably give you good advice, but you need to be aware of their biases."

Photographers can give suggestions based on what works for them. If they have enough experience of seeing others' work, in books and galleries and elsewhere, AND the wit to analyze them, AND the vocabulary and the experience to put their opinions into words, they may be able to offer more general advice.

But I get rather annoyed with people who say, "I shoot only for myself. What do you think about my pictures?" If you really shoot only for yourself, why do you care what anyone else thinks? Indeed, why do you show them to anyone else?

Cheers,

R.

Horseart Loc: Alabama

Great photo, not sure why anyone would be reluctant to post that one!
Mountain Brook, huh? I was born and raised in Birmingham! Still in love with Alabama, but have lived in Tn a loooong time!