Facebook people who call themselves photographers

Haha no. Shit doesn't affect us man!

I'm just sick of hearing about self-proclaimed "established photographers" bitching about how middle class soccer moms won't pay $8k for their photography. It's stupid to expect them to; it's business 101. They just want something to bitch about.
 
No?

Rule of thirds was invented for beginners to understand the concept of balance. People like here are in no position to break rules if they can't do it properly.
 
no.....

first of all, never argue composition with landis (varsity). he has studied composition more than like 95% of people on this site.

second, here are some portraits that are pretty good in my opinion. notice how there isn't a dead center face in the bunch.

IMG_1278-Edit-Edit.jpg


IMG_1473-Edit-Edit-Edit-Edit.jpg


IMG_1530.jpg


keep in mind that dead center means not only horizontally centered, but also vertically centered. and in that photo of the girl on the tennis court, the position of her face leaves a lot of awkward headroom.
 
my favourite photographs are normally ones which don't follow rule of thirds. although they're pretty much never portraits.

example:

if someone were to have put the horizon at a third way down, the picture just wouldn't be nearly as good.

65492_460335216323_663941323_5996480_8237475_n.jpg
 
It's funny you mention that because that photo DOES use the rule of thirds. The line stemming from the bottom center curves to the right third of the frame, which streams into the mountainous horizon (which is also vaguely placed in the upper third of the frame), which compositionally creates the number "7." It's a good photo no doubt, but it DOES use rule of thirds.

Again, some of my favorite works break the rule, but only the well-seasoned are able to do this correctly, which is why I always tell amateurs (people with 5 years or less of experience, generally speaking) to follow the rules until they know exactly how and why to break them. This elite group excludes the so-called "facebook photographers" and 95% of NS.
 
the horizon is nowhere close to 1/3. take out your ruler and you'll find it's about 1/6th of the picture. and when did I ever say it doesn't apply horizontally? I just failed to see where there is any rule of thirds happening in this picture.

here, the only thing I can see following this rule now is the peak of the closest dune being about 2/3rds up the picture. But the main points of the picture don't follow rule of thirds as the dune is about the centre of the picture and the horizon is in the top 1/6th.

unled2lp.jpg
 
well actually I see the whole background/foreground thing in general is in thirds. I guess if you include the horizon and the further dunes as the same entity then it works. but in that way you can make jsut about any picture follow it. I'd be keen to see an example that blatantly doesn't
 
You're analyzing the shapes with too much detail. What I see is that entire horizon behind the foreground dune making up one nebulous shape in the upper 1/3rd. The bracket of the foreground dune (the arc) is sort of the key area of that line as that's where it draws your attention to, which also happens to be in the right-hand 1/3rd.

And no, I don't believe any photo will automatically abide by the rule of thirds if we are to use generalized shapes to distinguish their presence, since the aforementioned "facebook photos" still fail to reach this quota no matter how vague you define such shapes. In other words, it's painfully obvious they know nothing about composition no matter how much you handicap your definition of certain theoretical principles.
 
tumblr_ljyh4yDsoV1qzoi8i.png


rule of thirds doesn't mean things have to be exactly at horizontal 1/3, vertical 1/3, etc. if something is generally in one of the thirds of the frame (as in the horizon generally being in the upper third), it follows the rule
 
then that means every single picture, illustration, drawing, etc etc follows rule of thirds 100%. since everything is in at least 1 of the thirds. that's dumb logic.

someone show me a picture that doesn't follow it!
 
We could make this rule of halfs then. the horizon is generally in the upper half the picture, so it follows rule of halfs. or what about rule of wholes? the hoeizon is in the whole picture, so it follows that rule perfectly.

god damn that is some of the most retarded logic i've ever heard. as it applies to ever single situation.

rule of thirds is where you frame something approximately, ex the horizon, at one of the third marks of the picture. how is the horizon anywhere close to a third mark in it? obviously it's in on of the thirds, but it's no where near one of the mwrks.

Look at the second example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds

the horizon just being in the centre thrid of the picture is not enough for it to be considered to follow the rule. same with the horizon just being in the top third is not enough either.

soooo yea. good try though, the horizon certainly doesn't follow it. the whole foreground/background thing does though
 
index.php


You aren't supposed to nitpick over minute differences in lines/boarders. You are supposed to average the presence of shapes.
 
that picture follows rule of thirds even more than sand dune one. concrete backdrop or the horizon top third, she's in the middle third (going by what was stated before)

now show me a picture that actually doesn't follow it.
 
facepalm.jpg


The fact that you are unable to differentiate between the concepts of dead center and rule of thirds only verifies that you don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, the fact that you knowledge of the subject consists of nothing more than plagiarized internet definitions shows that you have no authority to debate this.
 
WOW! you are talking yourself in circles. That was my whole point by saying that!!

It was said the horizon in the top of the dunes picture is considered to follow rule of thirds because it is in the general area (directly in the centre of) the top third of the picture. The girl in that picture is in the general area (directly in the centre of) the middle third of the picture.

The logic being put forth by you guys just does not follow any sense at all. I know perfectly well what rule of thirds is, and cited the definition (which is not considered plagiarizing, and you obviously don't know what plagiarizing is) off wikipedia to back up my point that the horizon in the dunes picture does not follow rule of thirds.

If it does, then the girl does.

You call me stupid for saying it doesn't, then call me stupid for saying the girl does following your (and mr orange names) definition.

get your story straight.
 
Dead center = middle third on the X and Y axis, which is also the antithesis of the rule of thirds. This is composition 101.

Just because you know how to use Google doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. There's not much more I can say here, because apparently you know so much that you're willing to argue with two people who are infinitely more knowledgable and experienced than you.

If you still can't pull your head out of your ass, feel free to regurgitate your non-argument to Will. He's a much nicer person than I am.
 
I'll use the allmighty definition which you call right in this thread then:

"if something is generally in one of the thirds of the frame (as in the horizon generally being in the upper third), it follows the rule"

girl= in one of the thirds of the frame. therefore follows rule?????

or how about this then:

does this was the make belief picture, does it follow the rule of thirds?? the horizon is generally in one of the thirds of the frame.

unled1sivtdg.jpg


logic!!!!
 
What+the+fuck+am+I+reading.jpg


you're seriously still arguing this man? more than that, you're still arguing this against filmers/photographers?

if you actually knew the rule of thirds like you claim to, and you weren't desperately nitpicking our arguments in hopes of calling us out on something, you would know that if the subject is generally in the middle third both horizontally AND vertically, it is dead center and DOES NOT follow the rule of thirds. the only reason we didn't feel the need to point that out earlier is that it's obvious. when i said 'anything being in one of the thirds,' any reasonable person would have known that something in both of the middle thirds is obviously NOT following the rule. it shouldn't have to be said. especially if you are supposedly familiar with the rule of thirds like you say you are. but you took that opportunity to claim that our logic doesn't make any sense, because that was really your only way of arguing at that point.

by the way, the pic landis posted of the girl playing soccer does not follow the rule. the subject (the girl) is in both the horizontal and vertical middle thirds. you don't take the concrete shit in the background into consideration because the girl is the subject, and she's dead center.
 
Ironic, coming from someone who cries straw man instead of presenting an argument.

All you've done is convince me that your photography probably belongs in this thread.
 
then with the sand dune, it's in the centre vertical third. so it doesn't follow the rule? you're saying the picture does because of the horizon, even though the horizon (like the concrete), is jsut the background and shouldnt be taken into consideration?

so the girl doesn't follow it at all and the dune picture completely does??

and varsity, you already said I take nice pictures.
 
anyways, all I'm getting at is I don't think the picture of the dunes follows rule of thirds very well, as neither the main subject nor the horizon fit into thirds. subject is centred and horizon is right at the top.
 
The sand dune stems from the lower left, leading your eyes to the middle right, opening up into the clearly defined horizon in the upper third. These "key parts" flow effortlessly through composition; as I said earlier, like the number 7.

The picture of the girl is the exact opposite. You have the subject standing in the dead center. The background has no distinguishable traits that draw your eyes to it, and seem to be placed randomly and without purpose.

The rule of thirds isn't some quantifiable and rigid "checklist." You need to take into account things like the form, gesture, harmony, pattern, contrast, geometry, etc. and integrate them into your spatial arrangement (rule of thirds). Some objects have a more well-defined "presence" than others (depending on the aforementioned properties), and thus are analyzed with varying criteria. It's just plain silly to analyze composition as simplemindedly as you put it-regarding it as nothing more than the two-dimensional arrangement of undefined objects, all of which are treated with equal significance whilst ignoring the other equally crucial elements. A person does not equal a dune, which does not equal a horizon, etc.
 
god damn, how do you not get this.

varsity already said everything perfectly, but i clearly said if it's generally in the horizontal AND vertical middle third (as with the girl playing soccer), it doesn't follow the rule. the horizon isn't in both. It's not even in the vertical middle third or (exclusively) in the horizontal middle third. the fact that the dune spans multiple thirds vertically works to lead the viewer's eye up the photo to the horizon. but it does follow the rule. if it is only in one (as in just the horizontal or vertical middle third), then it can still follow the rule.
 
and I'd like to put extra emphasis on what was said here. the rule of thirds isn't the same for every photo, regardless of content. what justifies the rule of thirds being followed can vary widely from photo to photo.

for example, you tried to compare the horizon with the concrete wall in the soccer photo. but you can't compare those, because the concrete wall wasn't the subject of the soccer photo. imagine if you added a cactus right in the middle of the dune photo, that started in the middle rectangle of the grid and went straight up into the middle rectangle on top, so it spanned the top two vertical thirds while staying right in the middle of the middle horizontal third. that would be a very awkward composition that doesn't follow the rule. by just a change in subject, a photo that went from following the rule went to one that doesn't. so it's more of a thing that artists come to understand more over time, it can't really be instantly taught.
 
 
The great thing about rules such as the rule of thirds and the many other rules in photography, they are just GUIDELINES which are meant to be BROKEN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top