Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The History of "The Rule of Thirds"

neomodern.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: The History of "The Rule of Thirds"

#11

Post by encomiast »

photochemsyn wrote: post #4

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, suc…

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/

Re: The History of "The Rule of Thirds"

#12

Post by mbivert »

smokel wrote: post #10
mbivert wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ind…

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 reall…

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...

Re: The History of "The Rule of Thirds"

#14

Post by treflop »

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).

Re: The History of "The Rule of Thirds"

#15

Post by iambateman »

crdrost wrote: post #5

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…

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.

Re: The History of "The Rule of Thirds"

#16

Post by anigbrowl »

(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.

Re: The History of "The Rule of Thirds"

#17

Post by egypturnash »

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.

Re: The History of "The Rule of Thirds"

#19

Post by qingcharles »

iambateman wrote: post #15
crdrost wrote: post #5

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…

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…

You have to know the rules to break the rules.

Re: The History of "The Rule of Thirds"

#20

Post by droidmaker »

egypturnash wrote: post #17

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. Lik…

this isn't about 'annally precise"! Saying the Golden Mean is "about" 1/3 is like saying "it's not the rule of thirds it's the rule of Pi, since Pi is 'about' three, we'll say the frame should be divided 1/Pi" yes, it's about the same thing, but it's so unrelated and so absurd to use it that way, it's misleading.
Post reply on HN