JPF Home Page Forums Creative Arts Forums Visual Arts and Photography Forum The Rule of Thirds - photography toolkit #2

The last time I talked about how leading lines can improve a composition. This time I thought I'd talk about the rule of thirds.

If you're like me and hate rules, don't worry - it's not really a rule. Just another technique for getting a better composition. Before saying what the rule of thirds is, let's see if it's even worth talking about. Compare the two pictures below - taken on a foggy day in Nova Scotia. Which one has the most pleasing composition to you? This one:




Or this one:





Now compare these two pictures of a wagon in a ghost town. Which composition do you like better? This one:




Or this one:




Most people find the second of each pair to have the most pleasing composition. It so happens that both try to make use of the rule of thirds. What's the rule of thirds? Consider this diagram - think of overlaying a transparency of it on a picture:



The rule of thirds simply states that pleasing compositions often arise from placing objects in the picture at the location of the red circles - which are 1/3 of the way into the picture vertically and horizontally. Also, if you have a strong horizon or vertical line in the picture, pleasing compositions often arise by placing the line at the location of one of the blue lines.

The same ideas apply to pictures in "portrait" as opposed to "landscape" mode.

This idea is related to the "golden ratio" that artists and architects have used for centuries to create pleasing compositions and building designs. Steven Spielberg uses this technique alot in his movies. Look for it and you'll see it!

Just placing the main object at one of the "third" locations does not guarantee a good composition. In my opinion, you need something else in the photograph to provide a balance to the main object. In the examples above, the ships and buoy in the background provide a balance to the rower and the barn in the background gives balance to the wagon. If you can get the "balancing object" to be on the diametrically opposed "third" location as well, the image can be even better.

Here are a couple examples. Take a look at the swans in this next picture:




Now imagine if the swans were at the same vertical position but in the center of the photo horizontally. It's not nearly as pleasing. Note also how the door in the tower provides a balance to the swans. Sometimes you have to work at these things - I had to toss bird seed at the exact location that I wanted the swans to be in - and then wait patiently until they made there way over to it


Take a look at this picture of Angel Arch and Molar Rock from Canyonlands National Park. Notice how the arch and the top of the "molar" are both placed near thirds in the picture? You don't have to hit the "thirds" exactly - sometimes the landscape won't let you. It's just a guideline.




The reason I hate to call this a rule is that people will sometimes then treat it as one. I saw a guy once take a picture of a round decorative plate. He had it placed in the lower right corner of the frame and the rest of the image was just a black background. It looked silly. I asked him why he shot it that way and he said it was because he heard that we should not center the main object!

His picture didn't work because it was unbalanced. So the rule of thirds is not something that should be followed rigidly - sometimes your subject is not appropriate to it. In other words, its not a tool that will guarantee balance - but it may help you find it. And in the right situation, it can give your photo a very nice composition.

I thought I'd end this by showing some photos that JPF members have already posted here and that make use of the rule of thirds concept. Please let me know if you object to the use of your photos here - if so, I will remove them. The only thing that would upset me is if I upset YOU by using them.

I only use members photographs that I think are particularly effective. I've got plenty of poor examples in my own work

By the way, I am not downloading your photos and storing them elsewhere. These are all pointed to your original links....

Look at this picture of Brian Austin Whitney's - note how the collection of buildings fall near the lower left third and are balanced by the mountain in the upper right third?





Now look at Tricia Baker's swamp picure:



This is as nicely placed as possible, in my opinion. Note how the main tree follows the left vertical "third" line and the water line follows the lower horizontal "third" line. It would be nice to place the feeder at one of the intersection of lines - but she would have had to compromise on the placement of the water line. So, yeah, sometimes you DO have to compromise but I think she made the correct call here - particularly since the wide base of the main tree also draws you eye and it does sit near one of the intersection points.

Look at Bob Young's picture of this sign:



I think he took this because it was funny. I thought it was hysterical. But why not make it the best it can be anyway? He did! Notice how the main sign is placed and how the road and green sign on the left provide the balance. Imagine how boring the photo would be if the Bong sign was centered.


I love this picture Bree Griffith took of her sons. Can you see the rule of thirds being used here?

[img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid225/pf23d1d97bebd97b3720c39f18c55755b/e9d37e3d.jpg[/img]

Last but not least we have Michael James Moore's waterfall picture. He can't truly follow the rule of thirds here - the location of the subject won't really allow it. But he's applying it in spirit. Note how the main series of falls on the right is balanced by the more distant ones placed in the lower left. The clouds help too. Hold up your hand and crop off the left third of the picture - see how much less effective that would be?

[img]http://www.mjmrecords.com/cliffwaterfall_large.JPG[/img]


So that's my story on the rule of thirds - one more technique to store in your bag of photographic tricks. Like leading lines, it can't always be used but, when it can, it works great!

Feel free to post your own examples here if you wish....

Also, please remember that all my knowledge comes from reading and interacting with a lot of other photographers. I have no formal education in the area - please feel free to disagree with anything I say and we can all learn something new!

Scott

Another great lesson Scott! I think we all need to post a bunch more photos so he has continual fodder for the examples. This is as good as any photography book I have read and seeing examples from people we know makes it a lot more fun! If we do this long enough, you'll have a book ready Scott!

Brian

Scott, you're the right man for the job. I'm going to learn SO much from you. Brian and Scott, thank you both.

Hey gang, doing this is a lot of work so please give Scott some feedback and let him know you're reading and learning. I can't afford to give him a raise! = )

Brian

Thanks Brian:

This isn't work - this is therapy

Yeah, more photos! We need more photos!




Hey Tricia:

You're a sweetheart - thanks


Scott

I am not a photographer, but I love this! My daughter is definitely into photography and I will be turning her on to this as soon as she finishes her finals this week.

Thanks, Jack! Appreciate it...

Scott

Really good Scott

I have plenty of photos I can put in...but I'm not sure how to do it. I have a digital camera with photos on my hard drive. How do you get them here?

Herbie

This was a tremendous lesson. I've never heard it explained this way. The examples were terrific illustrations of the point. Thanks!

Thanks James:

Glad it worked for you. Nice to see you around again too!

If you have learned this coming from a different angle, feel free to add your thoughts here. I love to see others throw their take on things up...


Hey Herbie:

I've been planning to write a post about how to post photos here. Its on my list to do next but I'm about to be incommunicado for 5 days. In the meantime, I'll send you a pm that I've sent to a couple of other members. It has all the info in it - not in perfect detail but probably good enough for you to figure it out.

Thanks Guys,
Scott

Hi All,
A Technique I used to photograph children from about 5 or so in age and up. Many times to get a natural picture a child will change facial expressions trying to please the photographer. I would sit the subject on a high stool and have them face 90 degrees away and turn their head towards me. As soon as they looked at me I would snap the first picture. Then I would have them turn towards me on the stool and snap the next picture. Then I would have them turn 90 degress so the faced in the other direction and look at me and snap the third picture. One of the poses would probably be very acceptable.

I of course used a tripod and composed the picture so all I had to do is press the shutter. I got many good natural photos using this technique.

Another tip is when photographing candid pictures of children is get down on their level.

Scott...

I am loving these lessons!!!

For the most part, I've just been taking photos of what "I" thought looked good. Now I can actually have a little knowledge behind it.

Tricia is right...you are definitely THE man for the job. Bravo!

Bree

Hey Scott,
Being too caught up in work, I didn't buy my first digital camera until last year. My husband and I took some pictures on a trip to Paris and I found that I love to take photographs now. So, having this forum as a way to learn and get critiques is wonderful. How do I get my jpgs over to these posts?

Heidi

Hey Ray:

Good tips! I particularly like the one about changing levels. We get so used to standing up and photographing everything at eye level that we forget that by changing level, we can show the world from a different view point. Thanks!


Hey Bree:

Thanks again - appreciate the vote of support!


Hey Heidi:

I've been away for a few days. My next post will show how to do this. In the meantime, I'll send you a pm that I've sent to a few other members. Hopefully, it isn't too hard to follow.

Thanks again, all

Scott

Thanks for the useful info Scott.
Another whole world of things I know nothing about.

Calvin


http://www.soundclick.com/bands/0/calvinstewart

Thanks Calvin. That's what makes it fun!

Scott

Hello Scott,
I am so happy to have learned the "thirds" and the "lead line" rules! Wish I knew them when I went to Paris last August. My husband and I bought our first digital camera for that trip and found out that we love taking photos. Don't know much about cameras or the artform, but had a blast experimenting. It's one of those "point and shoot" type of cameras so we are at the bottom of the learning curve. But, I am posting a shot from the Gardens of Monet that I think has an interesting composition. Would love your thoughts so that I can move up the learning curve!

Thanks, Scott!

Heidi

Hey Scott,
Guess I wanted to make a BIG impression! How do I make the image smaller? Wow! I feel like Alice in the Looking Glass!

Heidi

Hey Heidi:

That is a nice composition - there are three elements in it that make it so:

(1) The water forms a leading line

(2) Related to the rule of thirds is the idea that it is not pleasing to have horizontal or vertical lines centered. Your water line is below center (not by much but enough) and it works well there.

(3) Creating a frame within the image is a good compositional trick - you have used the tree for this and it is effective in this case. Framing is the topic of a future toolkit and I'll be able to use your pic as an example.

To make it smaller: Not sure what software you use to look at images on your computer. But the odds are good that there is a tab on it somewhere to resize the image. You can play around with that until you get a size you like. If you use Microsoft Office Picture Manager, for instance, you can click on "picture" and then "resize". Alternatively you can click on "picture" and then "compress" and then select compression for web posting - that will compress the file and also make the image have a reasonable size.

Point is, you should do this before you upload to wherever you store the image.

Hope that helps - if not, let me know what software you are using...

Scott

Thanks, Scott.
I will play around with making my images smaller. Now that I have some of your toolkit datums, I am very excited. I will look for other photos in which I accidentally and/or naturally captured some possible examples of both rightness and wrongness of the tools. This is a valuable and fun learning curve! You are greatly appreciated!

Heidi

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z272/thetan1234/100_0343.jpg

Hi again,
I went to photobucket and saw a place where you could change the size of your upload, but even after doing that...the url just comes up on this post. Not the photo. All my photos in my computer were direct from my Kodak Easyshare camera and into the folder. Will have to figure out another way to make them smaller.

Heidi

Hi Heidi:

Good job - noticing that photobucket allows you to control image size when you upload. I missed that.

I tried it and it worked for me. I uploaded the same exact picture twice - once with the default size and once by selecting the website (320x240) option. Here they are:






I'm thinking you just forgot the image tags when you posted your resized pic here.

There's two ways to post it - one is the way I suggested in the PM where you grab the URL link from photobucket and place it within image tags using the image icon on the JPF posting window.

Another is to grab the IMG code (rather than the URL link) from photobucket. This already has the image tags so you just have to paste it directly into your post (don't have to use the image icon). I'm wondering if you did the latter but used the URL link instead of the IMG code.

I hope that makes sense

Thanks for clueing me in about the size control options in photobucket!

Scott

Hey Scott,
I think I forgot the one step you mentioned about the URL in the post. Let's try this...
It's a shot of the Paris Opera House. I think it could lend itself to some helpful hints as to how it could have been better. Thanks again. You rock!

Heidi

Hi Heidi:

Let me give my opinion on two different levels. First is if it was simply to be a photo to document your trip. You want these to be as good as possible but they don't have to be competition winners either. If this is that type of photo, the answer is easy - I'd have shot it just like you did. The converging leading lines from the tops of the buildings on each side lead to the opera house very nicely. So good job - if I took this trip, I would be pleased to be able to show this photo to people. The only thing I would have done different is maybe shoot another pic a second later after that white car on the left went out of the frame.

If the interest is to create an image that you could sell at art festivals or enter in international contests, the game gets harder. It looks like an overcast day which is what is creating the moody feel to the picture. That's great. A problem with these types of images though is the sky shows up nearly as bald-white. This draws the attention of the viewer to the sky rather than where it should go. What can be done about it? Not much. If you expose to get some detail in the sky, then the rest of the image goes dark. So you can try to minimize the sky some - maybe by cropping off the top of the picture. Sometimes that can screw up the composition though. Anything else one could do? Well you could take two shots - one exposed for the sky and one for the rest of the scene. Then combine them digitally. Or you could even combine this scene with a sky shot from a completely different image.

That probably seems out of control. But I used to do that all the time to transform a picture into something that could win something.

What else might I have done different? Well, it would have required standing out there for probably an hour or more. I would have moved up and stood even with that sign on the right - to get rid of a little clutter. Then I would have waited for just the right moment where another bicyclist (hopefully wearing a brightly colored shirt) rode by and I would have snapped the shot with him (or her) more in the foreground - so as to add some depth to the picture. I may have even rented a bike and asked my wife to ride by on it

Would he or she have ever come by at the right moment? Where the cars coming the other way are in the position they are in now? Maybe not Sometimes the pic just gets away.

When I set up this picture:



I was all ready to take it and some people wandered into the frame. At one point, a family of four started playing frisbee in the lawn between the car and buildings! I had to wait a half-hour to get the shot.

And that was after having been there the day before and figuring out that I'd have to come back the next day at a different time to get the direction of light that I wanted.

Another time, my wife set up a shot that looked very nice. It occurred to us that it would look much better if one of those ubiquitous cattle skulls was in it. So we drove half an hour to a shop and bought one for $30. We went back to the scene, took the photo, and then went back to the shop and sold the skull back to them for $20.

What's my point to all this? When you see an absolutely stunning photo of a landscape, the chances are excellent that the photographer did a lot of research and figured out when the best time to shoot it would be. If there are people in it, the odds are good that he placed them there. Getting a superb photo by luck is almost impossible.

So - if we aren't in that mode and just want to take the best picture we can at the time, we do the best we can. And you did. And you got a great travel photo.

I am comfortable operating in both of those modes - depending on what the purpose of the trip is...

Hope I didn't ramble too long...

Scott

Dear Scott,
You could never ramble on too long with all the interesting bits of gold you scatter about! Thank you so much for the intense amount of data you put into such a small space. I totally am devouring every word and concept you put there. I saw the bicyclist riding by in the brightly colored shirt, adding depth.

By the way, the shot you included in the above post is absolutely outrageous! It looks like a photo for a film trailer or a the photo taken for a master artist to paint. Unreal! Tell me about the awards you've won. I know there must be some pretty good stats in this area for you. I'd love to see the winning photos with a story behind them and how you set them up and why you feel they won. Now, that would be something I'd pay to see. Thanks again for being so remarkable. I knew you were special when I saw your posts, but this forum shows you off perfectly!

Do you work as a photographer at all? What's your background? Tell us, oh wise one.

Heidi

Hi Scott,

I just wanted to stop in and thank you for these lessons. I am enjoying them and looking forward to taking better pictures.

Vondelle

Hey Heidi:

You're a sweet-heart

But people who read these tips should know that I am strictly amateur...

I've give some biographical information so that people can place my comments in context.

As a kid, I took a lot of black and white photos and printed them in my basement darkroom. Just kind of learning by trial and error.

Years later I got back into it again - turns out my wife did the same thing when she was a kid so we had a hobby we could share. One day she noticed an advertisement for the Tampa Bay Camera Club. The way the club worked is that it had a competition every month where a photographer could enter three images for scoring by judges. If the photographer wished (I always did), they could have their images torn apart in a critique.

Some of these images had to be entered in an "Assigned Category" (like, Portrait, Still Life, Action, etc.) which forced us to shoot all kinds of different subjects.

Also, once a month, the club had a program night where some aspect of photography was covered - either in a talk or a hands-on workshop. These covered all kinds of things, like bringing in models to shoot portraits, hand-coloring monochrome prints, making and using a pin-hole camera and all kinds of special effects topics.

To anyone seriously interested in photography - I highly recommend seeing if you have a club like this (it is a fairly typical model) near you. Your knowledge and abilities will grow exponentially!

I did this for the next ten years, working my way up to the most advanced level in the club. Along the way, I was the program director (which forced me to learn to new techniques and meet local pros), competition director and president. At the same time I was reading every book that I could get my hands on. My bible became the three volume set of technical photography manuals written by Ansel Adams.

Some years earlier, a collection of such clubs throughout Florida got together and created a council which hosted three statewide competitions per year and then a "Best of the Year" competition at their annual convention. Eventually, I became competition director and then president of this organization. This required me to do the same things I had been doing but at the state level. So I started to meet great phtographers throughout the state. At the same time, I saw every competition image submitted (about 1500 per year) throughout the state over a five year period or so.

My wife and I prepared a series of programs on various topics (infrared photography, darkroom manipulation, landscape photogaphy) that we would present at various club meetings and conventions throughout the state. These were aimed at the serious amateur. We also created a more basic program that we presented on a couple of occasions to the general public.

My equipment was always very basic and essentially manual. We would rather spend $2000 on a trip and $100 on a camera rather than vice-versa. And we did a bunch of travel photography over that ten year period - our favorite location was always the desert southwest. Using basic equipment was an advantage because it forced me to learn EVERYTHING - I couldn't afford a camera that would do my thinking for me

As I indicated, the organizations I was involved in were driven primarily by competition. The toughest were the year-end competitions by the state-wide council of camera clubs. Here, you were competing with the best images of a few hundred of the best amateur photographers in the state. I only managed to break into the winner's circle a few times. One year, the tumblers fell into place and I took 1st, 2nd, and 3rd with three different images in the advanced black and white category.

Sometimes we'd branch out of the camera club circuit and enter other competitions. I won best of show (and lesser awards) on several occasions at state fairs.

I only entered a couple of national level competitions - My prints were 11 x 14 on 16 x 20 mats. Shipping costs became an issue. Best I ever managed was an honorable mention.

Never tried to sell anything. Couple of times I donated prints to charity auctions and they were able to make a couple hundred bucks from them. On occasions when individuals asked me if they could buy a print, I'd say "No, but you can have one". It wasn't that I didn't value my work - just that I have a great non-musical, non-photographic career that also pays the bills. Turning a hobby into a way to make money would have just meant that I would have two jobs and would have to find a new hobby.

I was talking with a photojournalist once and told him I'd love to see some of his vacation photos. He looked at me like I was crazy and said the cameras stayed home when he went on vacation.

So I have closets full of prints...

My current plan, and this is not as morbid as it sounds, is to have them all laid out at my memorial service and have everyone take one home with them

While I still have a passion for looking at and talking about photographs, my need to do it every spare hour died away a few years ago. Not sure why - probably a few reasons:

(1) I was getting burned out. Ansel Adams said he was happy if he took 12 good photos a year. I was trying to get 36 every year over 10 years.

(2) I started taking photographs that I thought could win competitions rather than taking those which pleased me. I took a lesson here and make sure I don't let the same thing happen to my music

(3) I reached a point where I knew about everything technically that I needed to know and the only limitation was my equipment. By that point, I could have afforded better stuff, but it turns out that my interest declined because I was on the flat part of the learning curve. This was before digital - so that was not part of the learning curve. Now, I'm finding my interest is being rekindled because there is more to learn!

So in the interest of full disclosure: If I was at the same point in music as I reached in photography, I would be a JPF chapter coordinator, would help to pick award winners, would have won a few songwriting competitions at the state level, would have gotten an honorable mention in a national songwriting competition and would NOT have an album cut. In short, not spectacular but good enough for a hobbyist....

Nowadays, I enjoy traveling to feel the experience as opposed to photographing it. I still take photos - not to win comps but to create something I can look at later and have the memories return. The "do the best you can at the time" category.

Like this Mountain Goat in Glacier National Park:



Or my wife in Italy:



No award winners - just close to my heart

More than you wanted to hear....but it's here for the record so that people know where these tips are coming from...

Scott

Scott,
If it were me and I had the photographs that you have, I'd put them in a book. You could do a photography book, or....you could do a book of lyrics or poems to go with the photos.

I think you should start a weekly thread where you post a photo and then have your fellow writers create something to go with it. The farmhouse photo tells an entire story in an instant. It's a prize winner and could even be on the cover of the book.

You have way too much talent to not share it on a large scale. This forum is a wonderful gradient and I'm glad your interest got rekindled.

Whenever I create in a specific area for awhile and try to move up to a next level, I keep moving only as long as I am feeling validated for my work. As soon as I stack up too many losses, I start to let failure slow me down. This site has rekindled my desire to get back into songwriting.

Your forum is inspiring me to take more photos.

How about we all inspire you to do a book? I think that's a fair trade.

As far as the photo of your wife.....it tells the story of an award-winning husband who captured the beauty of nature as a backdrop to his even more beautiful wife.

The photo of the goat also holds the splendor of a magical back story. Are you ready to start that thread now?

"The old truck had lost its ability to do anything more than watch over us........"

Heidi

Hey Vondelle:

Your post came in while I was constructing my "War and Peace" post above and I almost missed it.

I'm glad you are finding these useful.

I'll try to get the next installment up during the next week.

Thanks!




Hi Heidi:

Thanks so much for the kind words. Very flattering...

I do have in mind somehow combining lyrics and photography. Starting to think about it more and more now that it is so easy to work with images. Don't know what the exact nature will be yet - up till now I've just been putting some of my images in the lyric booklets I create for my CDs.

I am not being humble when I say what comes next. Just knowledgeable

My photography is not at the level that it would have to be to sell at art shows, make coffee table books, or hang in galleries. It's close - and I COULD have gotten there - just would have taken one more step - but my interests went in another direction...

Again, I'm not being modest. This comes from years of studying successful images in those media and comparing my own to them. The primary difference is that for the kind of photography I do (landscapes) you really have to shoot in large format (4x5 negatives or larger). I did a little of that (my wife and I built our 4 x 5 view camera from a kit) but that was near the end of my run - the bulk of my images were shot 35 mm.

It's much like if a music fan came here and listened to the stuff on the MP3 board, they would say, "that's radio ready" - and the experts here know that it's not...

But there are other outlets I could explore - and your suggestion to combine them with lyrics or poetry is a good one. You've got me thinking - beyond the CD lyric booklets. So thanks!

As for the thread, you suggest - I'll respond in a PM.

I'm really happy that you are becoming more interested in photography as a result of this forum! Cool!

Thanks!
Scott

Hey Scott, Love the shot especially with the kid sucker punching his bother, I assume? As far as the rules of third for comprising a good composition I always learned it as a triangle rule which I guess is the same but can be double over and over again for complex compositions. Still great shots as always.

Hey Tobias:

Yeah, I like that one too. It was taken by Bree Griffith - a regular poster here.

I'm curious about the triangle rule. I haven't heard of it. How would you word it?

Thanks!

Scott

Basically it works like this. In any composition a good rule to follow is have the positioning of figures in a position to where it forms a triangle if you put imaginary lines connecting those parts of the pictures. In theory you can create good but complex compositions as long as it balances out in the form of right,obtuse, and acute triangles. It doesn't have to be totally exact in fact you can eyeball it. A good example would be the second ghost town pic with the wagon and then the two abandon buildings that are closest to us.

Scott, I wasn't active here when you originally posted this one. You have a real talent for illustrating and making these photographic "rules" easy for folks to understand. I love your pictorial examples. Have you ever thought about teaching a photography class or workshop? You would be an excellent teacher.

Clint

Hey Tobias:

Thanks. I can see times where the triangle rule and the rule of thirds would amount to the same thing. But I can see it as an independent concept too - thanks for the lesson!


Hey Clint:

Gwen and I used to do workshops - it was a lot of fun. She did most of the talking because she was so good at it. She used to start by saying, "the last thing I'll tell you is the easiest way to make people think you are a good photograher". Then she'd go through a bunch of tips but end by saying, "and the easiest way to become a great photographer? Only show your best pictures." Lotta truth to that

Kinda like Linus Pauling's secret to success: "Have a lot of ideas. Throw out the bad ones."

Scott