[HN Gopher] The History of "The Rule of Thirds"
___________________________________________________________________
The History of "The Rule of Thirds"
Author : harrylove
Score : 50 points
Date : 2024-06-28 16:36 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.neomodern.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.neomodern.com)
| smokel wrote:
| I often wonder what role snobbery plays in the acceptance or
| formation of these kinds of rules.
|
| An amateur would simply point their camera at the subject, and be
| done with it. To show that one has actually read a book on art,
| or at least thought about this for a minute, one can use the rule
| of thirds, or the golden ratio. Given enough guts, one can then
| proceed to the next level of reverse psychology by simply placing
| the subject in the center again, as Diane Arbus and Rineke
| Dijkstra do.
|
| The fact that the latter are quite successful, suggests that the
| rules are not fundamental.
|
| Edit: Forgot to mention that the article is really nice!
| mbivert wrote:
| > I often wonder what role snobbery plays in the acceptance or
| formation of these kinds of rules.
|
| Perhaps it's snobbery for some people, but there's definitely
| practical value in those rules, at least as far as painting is
| concerned: there's much less control with photography (unless
| it's digitally altered: we're getting closer to painting).
|
| For example, when you put things slightly of center this
| creates room to induce a "flow" within the piece, pathways for
| the eyes, keeping the viewer engaged with the piece/animation
| (eyes are attracted by strong contrasts: by controlling the
| intensity and placement of the contrasts, the eyes can be more
| or less predictably guided).
|
| Random reference: https://ebenschumacherart.com/learn-to-use-
| flow-in-your-art/
|
| The main issue with composition rules is when they're applied
| too rigidly: they should be thought as general guidelines. The
| key is too be conscious of the general impact of some of those
| rules (e.g. horizontal => calmness), and apply them with
| intent.
| smokel wrote:
| I have a suspicion that "flow" (or visual movement) has
| similar snobist connotations :)
|
| I'm not saying that snobbery in art is bad, by the way. I
| just couldn't find the right words for these concepts being
| social constructs, instead of related to fundamental workings
| of the brain.
|
| I find it interesting to consider aspects of vision that we
| all share, i.e. those that are not learned at a later age.
| Op-art is not really my cup of tea, but contrast, visual
| hierarchy, symmetry, all play interesting roles in painting
| and photography.
|
| I wonder if flow is one of those rudimentary visual skills,
| because I never experienced it before someone told me about
| it.
| mbivert wrote:
| I think the contemporary visual "fine" art scene is
| responsible for quite some damage in how people
| conceptualize art; "snobbery" is not an unfair description.
| It's difficult from the outset to distinguish smoke and
| mirrors from the real thing.
|
| Industries with more tangible economical grounds (e.g.
| comics, animation, advertisement) are usually better
| sources of knowledge as a result.
|
| > I wonder if flow is one of those rudimentary visual
| skills, because I never experienced it before someone told
| me about it.
|
| Perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that it has never been
| experienced _consciously_ : advertisement, movies, animated
| movies, all are designed with such ideas in mind.
|
| Also, note that there can be "variants" on this idea of
| flow. For example, "unity in diversity" is a common
| composition principle, where you try find a balance between
| an excess of diversity (chaotic looking) and a lack of it
| (boring): this will encourage the creation of a few tied
| zones within a piece, and a "flow"/"eyes pathways" should
| naturally arise.
|
| But even that principle of "unity in diversity" isn't
| always expressed in this way, sometimes it will arise from
| other notions (see the 5 principles of composition
| mentioned here [0]).
|
| [0]: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/45410/45410-h/45410-h.
| html#t...
| retrolumi wrote:
| I'm not sure how the article's authors didn't make the connection
| of the rule of thirds to the rule of threes. The rule of threes
| is an ancient idea (at least as old as the Romans, "omne trium
| perfectum", likely older) and is very clearly connected to the
| rule of thirds. This article is generally wrong about a lot of
| things which stems from this fundamental misunderstanding that
| the rule of thirds is somehow new.
| haswell wrote:
| How is the rule of threes connected to the rule of thirds?
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Additional commentary from nature/landscape photographer Ansel
| Adams (who often placed the horizon one or two thirds up from the
| bottom of the frame, e.g. Moonrise, but also used many other
| approaches):
|
| > "Are you tired of hearing about the rules of composition? So
| was Ansel Adams. 'The so-called rules of photographic composition
| are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant, immaterial,' he said.
| Rules of composition, such as the rule of thirds and golden
| ratio, are stale, predictable and boring. While they can
| certainly serve to create visually pleasing images, they can also
| stand to get in the way of creativity."
|
| https://www.photocrowd.com/blog/197-how-shoot-ansel-adams/
| vladms wrote:
| Sometimes rules/ideas are useful for specific stages or
| projects, but people tend to forget to be critical and decide
| for each project in particular the set of rules they want, and
| not to make out of them "axioms".
|
| Related to artistic stuff, I think some modern art can be
| understood much better if you at least are aware (have seen /
| thought about / discussed) the older art. It's not like 19th
| century art is invalid or irrelevant - the relevance is also in
| the process and defining what came before and after, plus
| personal preferences.
|
| Maybe the rules of thirds gets out of fashion, but might be
| still be useful for some projects, for understanding the
| evolution, or just because some people love it (like it's
| perfectly fine to like 19th century art compared to modern).
| encomiast wrote:
| As similar complaint:
|
| > "The rule of thirds is perhaps the greatest fallacy ever
| foisted upon the beginning photography student, a canard from
| lazy educators designed to give the impression that their ideas
| are based soundly in theory."
|
| ...and then asking why cinematography is taught differently:
| https://www.photo-mark.com/notes/rule-herds/
| crdrost wrote:
| This was an interesting history, it seems like we actually kind
| of don't really get a clear answer or at least a clear villain. A
| lot of the discussion pieces from before 1950 seem to be talking
| as if the rule of thirds is widespread as informal advice, just
| that nobody is writing it down. And then the military manuals
| come in and they have to write all of this stuff down so they do?
|
| I had a really great photography class in high school, complete
| with a dark room and developing our own negatives. When our
| teacher talked about the rule of thirds he phrased it in a very
| interesting fluid way, I only learned later that some people hear
| it as a much more rigid "this is how you have to compose" way.
|
| He said, if you have multiple subjects in the painting, there are
| kind of natural lines between them, and because your eye moves
| from one to another, there is natural movement along those lines
| while the subjects themselves get kind of "anchored." So like if
| you want to sell "busy street" you capture a beautiful house on
| the left and right, say, so that the eye is constantly moving
| along the busy street.
|
| And then he said that if you only have one main subject, you have
| to decide whether you want it to be in motion or at rest. If you
| want it to seem still and fixed and kind of eternal, you put it
| at the center. Dead center is a place of balance, our eye is
| naturally drawn to it, if you put the subject in the center there
| will be no motion.
|
| And only after all of that, he draws the rectangles and divides
| them into thirds both ways. And then continues, by putting
| something off center, on one of these lines, it gets a sense of
| motion towards the other 2/3rds of the photo since the background
| is expanding out in that direction. And especially at these four
| corners, there is a very strong diagonal motion towards the
| opposite corner. "So if I want to take a photo of someone walking
| into the great unknown, I place them at the bottom right corner
| and try to get the path snaking up this way, you get a real sense
| of movement then."
|
| Today I think that that makes it a little bit too scientific, I
| think things can look in motion in the center and static in the
| corners, so I think of it as just kind of a trick of the eye, I
| think it can be effective but I don't think it has to be that
| way. But it still made a good lasting impression on me.
| iambateman wrote:
| Ehhhh I see what you mean...but I definitely think it's useful
| to say to new people who know much less about this than you do
| "put the subject over here. It's a rule."
|
| Then, some of them will progress to the point where they
| discover that there are no Thirds Police and have the
| accumulated judgment to frame their subject in a truly
| thoughtful way. :)
|
| It's like describing the world in terms of "three primary
| colors." It's wrong...in a useful way.
| dmccarty wrote:
| It's a good article, but I think you could sum it up neatly by
| saying "photographic masses search for photographic rules, come
| up empty." I've been doing amateur/hobbyist photography, as I
| suspect many here have as well, for quite some time.[0]
|
| For a while, I followed the rule. But as a physics professor of
| mine once aptly put it, "Stop trying to look for a formula all
| the time. You have the tools to derive the formulas yourself."
| The rule of thirds, golden ratio, golden mean, golden doodle,
| whatever, are just hodge podge tools used by people who want to
| take a better pictures than the standard iphone eye-level shot
| (or the old Kodak 35mm point-and-click).
|
| For example, nothing about this image follows the golden spiral.
| It just so happens that a backwards upside down golden spiral
| overlay fits neatly over it: https://images.squarespace-
| cdn.com/content/v1/5978aa8103596e...
|
| The image is interesting because of the curve of the street, the
| Escher-esque staircase, and the fact that a bicyclist in motion
| happens to be moving past the only dead area of the image.
|
| And that gets to the main point: is the image interesting? If
| it's not an interesting image in the first place, no magic
| formula is going to fix it. That's where the creativity comes in.
| Find the non-obvious angle that gives the shot some interest,
| find a subject that's a little less obvious than the influencer
| instacrap wingspan shots, find a location that's a little off the
| beaten path. Do that 10,000 times and you'll train your eye and
| develop a unique style that can last you through life.
|
| Burk Uzzle is famously quoted as saying "Photography is a love
| affair with life" and I wholeheartedly agree. Life is beautiful,
| so just get out there and shoot it. You don't need a formula to
| find the love in a good shot.
|
| [0] ObPhotos (and speaking of instacrap):
| https://www.instagram.com/dphilippe/
| McDyver wrote:
| I was hoping for a diving article...
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds_(diving)
| treflop wrote:
| The Rule of Thirds is like the rule of not starting your
| sentences with conjunctions (and, or, etc.) or DRY.
|
| They're rules for newbies, but eventually experience should
| replace rules.
|
| That doesn't mean the rules aren't wrong -- often following them
| makes sense stylistically.
|
| I think a huge signal of inexperience is people who put rules on
| a pedestal (when doing work).
| anigbrowl wrote:
| (from a quotation in the article) _I hope we will never see the
| day when photo shops sell little schema grills to clamp onto our
| viewfinders_
|
| I have bad news for you about how cinematography has operated for
| decades, much as painters have used harmonic armature for
| centuries.
| egypturnash wrote:
| _But the Golden Mean is unequivocally and fundamentally distinct
| from the rule of thirds._
|
| If you want to be anally precise, sure. If you are just using it
| as a rule of thumb for where it is pleasing to put the subject of
| your composition, which covers a good quarter of the horizontal
| extent of your canvas, there is little difference in practice.
| Especially if your canvas' proportions are close to the golden
| ratio.
|
| Like every "rule" of art, it's more of a guideline. Do this and
| your picture will probably come out better than if you don't do
| it; if you're going to break one rule or another, then break the
| _fuck_ out of it and make sure you're not breaking any other
| rules unintentionally.
| antiquark wrote:
| I always thought the rule of thirds was interesting, because
| often you could chop a photo down the center, and still get two
| semi-competent photographs.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-28 23:01 UTC)