The subject is on center (breaking the rule of thirds) but I figured with the strong features of the girl (her sweater and face) and the strong diagonal theme with the kids on the pavement in the background this center composition isn't really that objectionable.

Comments?

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), November 26, 2001

Answers

John, what is the rule of the thirds. Please excuse my lack of knowledge..regards,

-- sparkie (sparkie@mailcity.com), November 26, 2001.

Divide your picture up into a grid of 9 equal rectangles and the intersection points where the rectangles meet (should be 4) are where you place your "impact" points (ie subject) in your composition. That way the subject "leads" your eye around the picture. Center compositions are mostly for weddings and mugshots. But I guess there is no hard and fast rule... that's why I need the ever-helpful people of this forum to exonerate me for committing this "travesty".

I dunno... does reckless use of center composition make one a Aesthetic Infidel? Maybe we should ask the Italiano photojournalists in Afganistan. They got style.

;-)

-- John Chan (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), November 26, 2001.

John I think it works. What would also work for me would be to crop away the right-hand third of the frame, just inside the red-shirted person in the background. The foreground girl is then closer to the frame edge, but she still has enough space. For me, this somehow ties together the three foreground kids and lets them be the center of interest, the eye finally coming to rest on the girl, without being pulled back to the red shirt in the background right.

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 26, 2001.

John, how can you break the rules, if you don't know what the rules are? The rule of thirds is just one of the rules of formal composition, and here I would disagree that you broke it. What we have is a dynamic triangle created by the three children. Where does the center of that triangle fall? Incidently, I really like this photo printed full frame. The negative space on the right seems to force the eye to the left, and the action. The little girls posture, is just marvelous. Also if we take the centerpoint of the mass of the little girl, again we see that's a third point.

-- Leicaddict (leicaddict@hotmail.com), November 26, 2001.

John:

IMO, it works as is, but only because of the two children in the background also writing on the pavement. Interestingly, the balance (or tension) line between the main subject and the two secondary subjects falls at a "Golden Mean" (one of the 4 intersection points of the thirds). It also works "square" as offered by Bob because the main subject is now at a "Golden Mean".

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 26, 2001.

PS: I like the photo!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), November 26, 2001.

There are no rules. The whole idea of rules is puerile. Photography is an instinct.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), November 26, 2001.

The picture is fine. The rule of thirds is only a guide, I think you are OK. The more you look at it, perhaps the more you wish that the girl was more towards one side (left) than in the center, but I don't see anything in the composition to make me think less of the picture. I quite like the picture, but suspect it is more meaningful as part of a set, since it has little extra "resonance" for me. There is a lot of good color in the shot though.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 26, 2001.

John; I´m not sure if I brake any rules, but someone was near to brake my neck wile doing this frame.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), November 26, 2001.

"There are no rules. The whole idea of rules is puerile. Photography is an instinct."

Yes, and I'm sure we'd all love to see the "instinctive" photos taken by the average three-year-old.

Almost all visually-pleasing photographs acknowledge some rules of composition (including the photos by people who repeat the above- quoted nonsense--whether they admit it or not). The simple fact is that viewers like some sort of organization in their images, and we call this organization "the rules of composition." These rules can be bent, broken, and combined in myriad new ways, but they are just as real as is our wish to have in consecutive order the words on a page we're reading, or to have melody, tonality, harmony, coherent lyrics, or rhythm (pick at least one) in the music we listen to. (Fans of John Cage can ignore that last statement, but then even he learned the rules of musical composition before he broke them!)

Granted, seeing strong photographic compositions can be (or can become) "instinctive," but if there truly were no rules of composition, we would value equally the visual order of photographs by the aforementioned three-year-old as we do those of a compositional master like Cartier-Bresson. For most of us this is not the case.

Sorry to get off track here (I like your photo, John; I think the pavement writing helps balance it) but whenever I hear a photographer say "I don't believe in rules" I have to ask them to show us examples of successful photos of theirs that DON'T follow any rules of composition.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

-- Micah (MicahMarty@aol.com), November 26, 2001.

I believe that what has been described in print as "rules of composition" are based on analyses of successful images and some of the similar compositional arrangements that are found, but that many if not most of those images were made by instinct. The proof is that it rarely works the other way around. Images made solely by adhering to the "rules of composition" usually fall short of the mark.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), November 26, 2001.

has anyone seen the golden section recently?

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), November 26, 2001.

Yeah the golden section is in front of me daily on the way to work attached to the hood, and does John Cage have any fans and are they allowed to admit it? And BTW, rules exist in both nature and in nurture thinking that they don't and or shouldn't exist will not make them go away.

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@home.com), November 26, 2001.

"Images made solely by adhering to the "rules of composition" usually fall short of the mark."

I think this is why there is resistance to the "rules:" they have little predictive value. There are people who know and follow all of the rules yet still produce photos that aren't worthwhile; and there are people who are ignorant of the rules who can produce excellent photos. It's rather like Freudian pyschological theory: you can go back and explain virtually any behavior that's happened using it, but you'd be hard-pressed to make any specific predictions based on it. If you enjoy coming up with stories about why things work, then indulge in the "rules" all you want. If you want to make good photos, simply following the rules really isn't going to do much for you.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), November 26, 2001.

As a musician we were taught to learn everything technique wise for a number of years and then for a number of years learn to let go, forget it, and play.It's the old yin and yang....the known vs. the unknown.Intellect vs soul.A constant battle! When I managed a minilab for a few months I saw a lot of average pics.The only pics I can remember with any feel to them out of thousands, came from a retarded/autistic man who came in occasionally with his Kodak disk camera who loved to photograph.I took pleasure in developing his pics because they were imbued with extreme honesty,sincerity, and heart ....not intellect.These photographs spoke an extreamly subtle and quiet language to me.I was admiring but also unnerved by the no barriors simplicity. I think the soul has no room for rules really...it becomes the rule by it's very nature...it's not a learned thing.That said I do think it is cool to train the intellect as far as it will go just so the tools are available when the soul isn't active and sometimes when it is.Also...but... the intellect is very crafty and will pretend it is beyond rules/laws when it is just nowhere.This is very tricky. I think music is different than photography because it is more in the now/moment than the visual arts and .....it disappears. It requires a system to play with others also and an audience to communicate.And it is also very obvious when a musician is not playing with spirit...even if the notes are there ...if the soul is not ... nothing remarkable results. Why analize this shot? The real question is...does it have heart and soul...the rule of thirds is just a cool tool....it's not the photograph.

-- Emile de Leon (Knightpeople@msn.com), November 27, 2001.

I think Mike has made the crucial distinction here, between normative and descriptive rules. I don't believe in normative rules in photography. And this is what makes photography so very different from other arts which _do_ follow normative rules, of which music would be the paradigm.

Maybe "instinct" was the wrong word, as it implies a pattern of behaviour we all have. (Un)fortunately, very few people have the photographic instinct to any degree. HCB had it in large measure.

As for Nature, that can be _described_ by _laws_, which is a rather different matter. There is no intentionality there.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), November 27, 2001.

Yeah I had considered that, but for the sake of an off the cuff remark it didn't fit into my plan. Compositional rules to me only apply in a subjective and analytical context after the fact or if you're seeking a particular effect to elicite some emotion or response from the viewer (adverising, fashion etc). I think the rule here is there may not be any ruling...

-- Dave Doyle (soilsouth@home.com), November 27, 2001.

"Compositional rules to me only apply in a subjective and analytical context after the fact or if you're seeking a particular effect to elicite some emotion or response from the viewer."

Dear Dave-

Huh?

-- jeff voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), November 27, 2001.