> >FWIW, the photo referenced is much closer to the "rule" than many others. > >Mine, for example, has nothing to do with thirds, and neither did the last > >two I posted (potty in the Alcatraz shower room and the Golden Gate > >Bridge). Shots by others in the gallery did fine without adhering to the > >"rule." And I think we will see many fine shots in the future that do not > >follow the "rule." > > The argument to discard rules is almost as tedious as the argument to keep > them. John Indeed. If the rules already mean so little to you that you routinely break them then why are they a big enough deal to argue against? I don't sit there behind the camera with "rule of thirds" chanting through my mind but I will, on occasion, mention it to explain how I think a photo could be better. (or sometimes why a photo worked despite breaking it). It's the same for "space to move" , "leading lines" etc etc. Chances are though the real reason I ever thought of mentioning "rules" at all was ***I didn't like the picture*** and was just trying to explain why concisely. "Rule of thirds": three words!. Try saying the same thing. What is tedious for me is someone jumping on a reviewer's head for not delivering comments in the way expected. Bob
