Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Photography
Landscape
Landscapes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave_W" data-source="post: 233654" data-attributes="member: 9521"><p>I'm going to have to disagree with all the noise about the "rule", now seemingly "law", of thirds. The idea that landscapes should be divided by thirds began with the classical renaissance painters and at that time was considered more aesthetically pleasing. But is it really more pleasing?? Maybe now after so many years of humans seeing landscape images in 3rds, it's hard to say whether or not such an arrangement is truly aesthetically pleasing or maybe we've just grown used to seeing them with this pattern and have confused familiarity with beauty. </p><p></p><p>The rule of 3rd's can turn an amazing shot into an "okay" shot. Take for instance image #1. Had wud faithfully obeyed this rule, we would have lost the wonderful symmetry playing between the sky and the land. And we would miss the significance of the river dividing the land once more, all mirrored by a triangular reflection in the water of the sky and riverbank. There is an innate beauty in symmetry and flushing it out in a photograph is the mark of a good photographer. </p><p></p><p>As for the "rule/law" of thirds, it's really there to give beginners a guide to follow as they're learning the art. It provides a simple way to frame a subject in order to achieve that classical landscape portraiture. But the is so much more going on in a good image. Look beyond the simple 3rd's and you'll find symmetry operators and repetitive shapes and angles along with contrasting themes and intensities that are found in any great photo. And while dicing up a photo into 3rd's is certainly not a bad thing, any skilled photographer should pay more attention to what is contained in an image rather than trying to squeeze this work into some arbitrary template developed over 400 yrs ago. Moreover, given the fact a photograph has only a small little space to tell its story, to limit that space even further with a silly "rule" does both the photographer and the viewer a disservice. </p><p></p><p>These 3 photos the OP posted are in my personal order of favorites. Love the first image while the second image is a good start and the third image isn't.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave_W, post: 233654, member: 9521"] I'm going to have to disagree with all the noise about the "rule", now seemingly "law", of thirds. The idea that landscapes should be divided by thirds began with the classical renaissance painters and at that time was considered more aesthetically pleasing. But is it really more pleasing?? Maybe now after so many years of humans seeing landscape images in 3rds, it's hard to say whether or not such an arrangement is truly aesthetically pleasing or maybe we've just grown used to seeing them with this pattern and have confused familiarity with beauty. The rule of 3rd's can turn an amazing shot into an "okay" shot. Take for instance image #1. Had wud faithfully obeyed this rule, we would have lost the wonderful symmetry playing between the sky and the land. And we would miss the significance of the river dividing the land once more, all mirrored by a triangular reflection in the water of the sky and riverbank. There is an innate beauty in symmetry and flushing it out in a photograph is the mark of a good photographer. As for the "rule/law" of thirds, it's really there to give beginners a guide to follow as they're learning the art. It provides a simple way to frame a subject in order to achieve that classical landscape portraiture. But the is so much more going on in a good image. Look beyond the simple 3rd's and you'll find symmetry operators and repetitive shapes and angles along with contrasting themes and intensities that are found in any great photo. And while dicing up a photo into 3rd's is certainly not a bad thing, any skilled photographer should pay more attention to what is contained in an image rather than trying to squeeze this work into some arbitrary template developed over 400 yrs ago. Moreover, given the fact a photograph has only a small little space to tell its story, to limit that space even further with a silly "rule" does both the photographer and the viewer a disservice. These 3 photos the OP posted are in my personal order of favorites. Love the first image while the second image is a good start and the third image isn't. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
Landscape
Landscapes
Top