i never realised it, but i seem to ignore the rule of thirds

[gio67]

i never really knew what it was until i started posting on here, and i never really knew i had a certain style of photography, but most of my pics seem to be central ie the dividing line right in the middle, thats what i seem to migrate to naturally, but taking heed of lots of comments on here ( and good advice too) i realise the rule of thirds is a powerful tool but i seem to keep doing these mid line shots instinctively, should i deliberately try and change my instincts , i never take pics with the idea of selling them , but obviously if somebody offered to buy one of my pics i would gladly sell it, and be really pleased that someone appreciated my efforts enough to pay a token sum for them, is there a difference between taking run of the mill pictures to sell or taking the same pics for your own satisfaction, i really love this one i took in plymouth , for a lot of reasons and feelings , i did try to get this exact pic; it took me over an hour i never knew the kid or her parents, just that she was cycling up and down the hoe and the warship was in the background and i thought of the innocence of the child and the menace of the warship, the bird in the pic was just pure luck and i never noticed it till i got home and adding that to my intention , it seemed in effect a vulture, waiting for the outcome and winning no matter what that outcome was,

[Javelin]

I came across this once because I noticed a lot of great pictures (at least ones I though were great) didn't follow the ROT either. this method though makes a LOT of sense and I think my pictures improved. In fact when I flip through some of the film shots i had I was a better photographer before I even knew there was a rule of thirds and a lot of my favorites from there have interest points that fall on the main diagonal lines from the corners. So I started shooting with this in mind and have improved my output quite a bit. even David put one of my pics in the magazine gallery that follows this where last time I gave him a shot it didn't make the cut but was a ROT shot of the same sort of subject.

Your picture seems to put the girls helmet right on the diagonal line. not sure the bird fits though. you have posted this before and I like it, it was memorable.


http://www.diagonalmethod.info/

[gio67]

I
Your picture seems to put the girls helmet right on the diagonal line. not sure the bird fits though. you have posted this before and I like it, it was memorable.
url]http://www.diagonalmethod.info/[/url]

your right javelin,i did post it before, it was after a comment or two on here last week that i realised what i was unintentionally doing, i then looked back over my old pics and some new ones i,d taken, but this one was the only one i can hand on heart say i went for that effect, but about 60% or a bit more of my others seem to be a midline sort of horizon if you know what i mean

[01af]

This image is FULL of thirds. The little girl is one-third into the frame from the right-hand side. The seagull is on a horizontal line which divides the sky into one third above and two thirds below (well, with a little lump of salt). The submarines (or whatever they are) divide the water ahead of the central vessel into thirds (well, apporimately). The biggest two of the white spots in the sand horizontally divide the beach into thirds---in just the same approximate way as the submarines do with the sea. The bicycle's length is about two thirds the length of the ship. The ship's height is about one third the height of the cycling girl. Err ... what was your problem again?

It's a gorgeous picture! I'd say stop worrying about math and keep shooting.

-- Olaf

[Birma]

The first thing that struck me about the photo, as Olaf has already said, is that the little girl on the bike is a third into the picture on the vertical plane, so I think it does support the ROT. I don't think the ROT should be an objective of composition, but an aid. i.e. I think objectives could be to lead the eye in to the picture and to tell the story of the picture, ROT may help achieve this but isn't the aim. Just my thoughts on it. I think the picture works equally well if you lose some foreground and the horizon is a third up, but I don't think it is worse with the horizon smack on the middle either.

(Nice to have some compositional discussion to go with all of the gear topics .)

[gio67]

thanks Birma and Olaf , great replies as usual, i got a bit mixed up with rule of thirds i really meant my horizons tend to be central, but your comments are well founded
its, back to the drawing board for me , thats what i like about photography your always going back to the drawing board, nothing is set in stone

thanks again

[01af]

... I got a bit mixed up with rule of thirds; I really meant my horizons tend to be central ...

Well ... central horizons usually don't work well so it's considered "a rule" (it rather should be: a recommendation) to avoid that. Still, with some images a central horizon does work. And your image above clearly belongs to the latter.

-- Olaf

[springm]

gio67, I think the rules are a good thing to know, and if it is only to break them! If a picture works, and this one does, then it works. Keepers are created not by following rules but a vision.