Reflections of glass - The rule of three?

I got this shot at the Atlanta Botanical Gardens. The flowers in the reflecting pool are glass. There are three red flowers and one white in the upper left of the shot. Does the composition follow the rule of three or break it?

Uh...yes and no, three red but four flowers Regardless of rules, I think it's very pleasing.
I think that the rule of three applies more to colour, at least in this photo. It also applies to the composition here. Nice photo.

Actually I've never heard of the rule of "Three" but I have heard and always keep in mind the rule of "Thirds" in basic composition. With that rule in mind I say Yes!

You can see how the flowers fall into the thirds plus the foreground, mid and horizon.

Just ignore the bird and place the flowers.

I think the composition is very nice.

Forgot to mention how much I like the picture, just stunning!

I love the composition, Joseph, and it's a great photo whether it followes the rule of thirds or not. I think your composition uses the "golden spiral", rather than thirds, and that's what makes it so appealing . . . draws you in almost like a dance!

Best Regards

There are two rules being discussed here and the confusion is my fault. There is the rule of third's which is a composition rule and beautifully demonstrated by Yibel with his bird shot. The other is a rule of content and is the rule of three's. When a subject has multiple elements you should avoid even numbers in the shot. In most cases a three element subject works best. Hence it is commonly referred to as the rule of three. In my first post I should have referenced the question as to content rather than composition. In any case, Yibel, that is one great shot of a red tail hawk.

I love the caveat below all the rules that says rules are to be broken, but I do agree the composition is beautiful.

Thanks for the nice comments guys and gal. Whatever terminology is used I've never found it possible to stuff composition into a firm set of rules, because someone will come along and violate them with a really great shot.

I'm not a real big fan of these type of filters, but a pastel or water color effect might look very interesting with this image. As long as we're breaking rules. Even if it is my own.

You know something?

If you look very closely in the lower right corner...

I think I see Jimmy Hoffa!!!

Great shot!

Unintended pun there.

Pete

Yibel said:

Actually I've never heard of the rule of "Three" .

Click to expand...

Actually there is a "rule of three", though I haven't heard it being referenced in photography very often, more so in design, landscaping, decorating, etc.

The Rule of Three, in any artistic endeavor, should actually be considered as the Rule of Odd.
For example, take a look at most of the masters landscapes and you will see an odd number of focal points.
Such as an odd number of trees that stand out, animals, ect.
Even Ansel Adams followed this same "rule" simply because it is more pleasing to the eye.

Just my 99 cents worth. YMMV.

Pete

Eduard - I just ordered a Coklin "P" size graduated filter set. They also have a very large verity of colors and types of filters so the possibilities are endless.

John - The rule of three was taught to me by a professional scenic photographer at a four day workshop in the NH White Mountains. It makes since to apply it to photography as well.

I should have posted the EXIF data with the photo: D90, 18-105mm VRII Nikkor, ISO: 400, CPL Filter, f/16, Shutter Speed: 1/20, HDR Photomatix, PP in Aperture 3.

I just love more rules, just joking, I have not heard the theory of 3's, or odds in photography but it does seem to make sense, I think.

Jodie Coston: Lesson 1 - MorgueFile

Check out this excellent lesson on the Rule of Thirds and the Golden Mean.

Hope this helps.

Pete

Hey Pete that is a really good article on composition, +1 for posting it. I think maybe we should stop calling these rules and refer to them as recommended guide lines. For every "rule" there are any number of great photographs that breaks or violates one or more of them. On the other side you can follow every composition rule in the book and still not have a very good photograph. Every one should read this article and study it. I've been "shooting" for over 40+ years and I still go back to the rules to refresh my memory. (If I'm going to break a rule I like to know which one I'm breaking).

Knowing the "rules" is important, but I always ask myself, what is the purpose for the rules. In this case, the rules are to help you take a good photograph. If following the rules doesn't accomplish the intended purpose, rule violation is required.

I prefer to think of the rules as the Steps of the Cookbook of Photography.

Step 1... Find a recipe you might like.

Step 2... Throw out the ingredients that you don't like and include those you do like.

Step 3... Season to taste.

If you don't know how to cook, you don't know what to leave out or what to substitute.

Thanks for the helpful, Joseph!

Pete

Carolina Photo Guy said:

I prefer to think of the rules as the Steps of the Cookbook of Photography.

Step 1... Find a recipe you might like.

Step 2... Throw out the ingredients that you don't like and include those you do like.

Step 3... Season to taste.

If you don't know how to cook, you don't know what to leave out or what to substitute.

Thanks for the helpful, Joseph!

Pete

Click to expand...

That's good. I like that.