Well, Herschel. I think that there is composition and there is composition.
The rule of thirds is very sensible for a beginning. There's really
nothing wrong with it at all for keeping your average snapper from
getting the top of mom's head cut off and a great shot of her waist.
It's a great boon for that type of shooter, a nice guideline to help
them take pix that are a few steps better than they were before
someone pointed out to them that such a rule existed.
And, in fact, the rule is useful for pros too. It keeps them from
getting excited and setting the shutter release off before they've
thought things through a little further, especially when the AD is
standing nearby and time is running low and the job has gone on too
long anyway.
So I have no quarrel with the rule of thirds.
But then there is composition. There's the outside-the-box type of
composition. The kind where the object is smack in the center
because there's no other logical place for it, or the object is right
at the rule of thirds intersection but because the photographer chose
a ferociously wide angle lens, or some interesting light angle, the
rule of thirds is not the dominant feature of the image. Or where
there is more than one subject in the photograph but the perspective
reveals that one of them is the more prominent and placing that one
at the rule intersection makes that clear. Clearly some creative
process entered the composing of the image - perhaps the photographer
was riffing on the rule, making a joke, trying to manipulate the
concept. Without the rule there'd be no riff.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto:elf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.com
http://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/
