In this picture I have "broken" the 1/3 rule. It was important to me that I capture a minimalistic mood with the tree and the foresight.
What do you think?
wintertime
In this picture I have "broken" the 1/3 rule. It was important to me that I capture a minimalistic mood with the tree and the foresight.
What do you think?
Hi Manuel. For me the composition is very good and denotes a different take on depiction of scale.
This is a good example where the 'rule' of 1/3s does not apply (I prefer to use the rule of 'balance').
I think this is a wonderful composition and tells a good tale - the drama in the sky overpowering the relatively small lone tree.
If I had to make one suggestion - the whites of the snow blend into my monitor's background. It would be good to drop the whites/highlights a bit or put in a very slight exposure gradient so the edge of the frame is evident.
Great work Manuel!
The rules are there to be broken!
thank you for your opinion ..
Beautiful job, Manuel! Love your composition. Regarding Alan's point about the whites, I can make out the frame edges very clearly and on my monitor dropping the tones would begin to make it look quite threatening.
Meaning no offence to those who find this rule helpful, somehow I never heard of it until I'd been "into" photography for years, and it immediately struck me as a rule for casual shooters whose instinct is to put the "subject" in the middle because, well it's the SUBJECT. The rule certainly confers improved composition over doing that, but to my mind rarely provides the optimum composition. This image would be a pale shadow (perhaps I should use a different metaphor on FS!) of what you've got here if you'd used that rule.
I wonder what others think about this rule. I might well be the odd one out.
After seeing this image on a better monitor I agree with Chris - I can clearly see the edge of the frame.
On the subject of the rule of thirds- I feel this is a decent starting point for many images where a subject is large. The 2/3 offers an opportunity for balance, which in many cases I feel is a goal.
To further the question of subject placement; do we feel the subject is the tree, or the relationship between the (insignificant) tree and it's natural environment?
In my mind the latter is what tells the story, and another reason to demote the position of the tree in the frame.
With the tree being so small I think this may also work as a portrait - with the threatening sky hanging over the tree.
Certainly an interesting discussion and one ripe for differing opinions
I suspect my problem with the Rule, Alan, is that the placement of a subject on the thirds does NOT really provide balance, but a bland? innocuous? generic? appearance for me, ultimately. I find myself thinking of stock shots - good for a magazine article, but lacking something on their own (and no disrespect to stock shooters at all; they provide a valuable service). Or maybe there IS a kind of balance, a neutrality when I seek a little tension, some subtle contrast, like a touch of bitterness to avoid bland sweetness in food.
An example where the Rule might come to mind could be a waterbird on a body of water, with nothing else in sight. I think in framing this up intuitively, where I found myself placing the bird would depend on tonal gradations in the water, the orientation of the bird, its movement if any, and other things beyond the "subject/ground" geometry.
This is very hard to put into words; I am trying to verbalise it partly to understand it myself, but also tease out how others, particularly those I respect such as yourself view this issue.
I'm intrigued by creativity and aesthetics, with their individuality and commonality (some things are seen as beautiful by many - why? etc.).
I"m dubious about rules, but note that repeatedly, people make plausible arguments that simple geometric-ratio rectangles (like the 35mm frame) are not the most pleasing forms. I compose within this frame, and rarely crop, which may introduce that tension or contrast right from the start. My latest hypothesis! I await the ack-ack...
Will I get banned for verbosity? ; - (
I look at the rules as 'explanations why compositions may work in lots of instances' and not things that have to/should be followed.
I do look back at images though and find that many often end up somewhat close to the rule.
Like you, I tend shoot instinctively, looking for the composition that best appeals in the frame, but I do look for the chance to improve by trying different crops/ratios in post.