Perhaps you read our composition tips for landscape photography and realized something interesting: It never mentions the rule of thirds. If you aren’t familiar with this technique, you’re rare — the rule of thirds is, by far, the most common rule of composition you’ll find in photography. But does it actually work? Can it really improve your images? The truth is more complex than you may think.
1) Not all photos need to follow the rule of thirds
All of these photos have something in common: Their compositions have nothing to do with the rule of thirds.
What does that mean? The main subjects of the photos have a structure other than this:
If all the photos above followed the rule of thirds, they would match very closely with this diagram. For example, the photo below does line up with the rule of thirds:
Pretty simple.
Clearly, you can take good pictures without matching the rule of thirds. But are they just exceptions to an otherwise valuable technique? Or, does the rule of thirds have some larger problems?
2) The intent, and the corruption
If you want to see whether or not the rule of thirds is valuable, you’ll want to look at its intended audience. The rule of thirds, quite simply, is intended for beginners. It’s meant as the first lesson to people who don’t yet know anything about composition, since they’re only starting to learn photography.
The rule of thirds is a tip that you tell your Uncle Bob when he says none of his photos turn out well. It’s a way to teach first-year photography students that off-center compositions can lead to beautiful photographs.
In this way, the rule of thirds can be a surprisingly useful guideline. It’s catchy and easy to put into practice.
Here’s the problem: People don’t realize that the rule of thirds is a one-trick pony. Yes, it helps teach people about off-center composition — and then it leaves them there, as if the only good off-center photo is one that follows the rule of thirds.
This waterfall is clearly off-center, but it doesn’t align with the 1/3 mark.
The rule of thirds fails when people start to use it as a guide to composition rather than a reminder that, sometimes, central composition doesn’t work.
There’s no reason why this is the “rule of thirds” rather than the “rule of two sevenths” or the “rule of thirteen twenty-ninths” except that it’s easier to remember. There is nothing magical about the 1/3 intersection points in a grid — and, no, our eyes don’t gravitate toward them, despite what some photographers say. (In fact, our eyes gravitate toward the interest points of a photo, generally without regard to where they are. If you’re looking for a good case study of this effect, here’s a fascinating Business Insider piece.)
This is why the rule of thirds is problematic. Yes, it’s a quick way to remember that dead-center compositions don’t always work well. No, the 1/3 lines don’t have any special powers.
3) It’s not just the rule of thirds
People like coming up with their own explanations for things. It’s what makes us human; we want to figure out the world for ourselves, inventing our own rules to explain how it all works. Unfortunately, we can also be quite stubborn. That’s not always a great combination.
When I first started taking pictures, I wrote a list of “compositional tips” on a sheet of notebook paper. Some of them were fine:
- A vivid-colored subject stands out clearly from a desaturated background.
While others were clearly false:
- The best photos contain three subjects, with each one slightly different from the next.
No!
The issue, though, is that no one is immune from thinking like this — that there’s a way to take better photos just by basing your composition upon a pre-existing template.
Unfortunately, there isn’t. The conditions that create a good photo change wildly from scene to scene. You just have to compose each photograph differently, depending upon the world in front of your camera (as well as your goal for the image).
Online, everyone has a voice — which means that the rule of thirds isn’t the only “rule” that you’ll encounter. There’s also the golden spiral, dynamic symmetry, the diagonal rule, and countless others. Just like the rule of thirds, these techniques don’t hold any water for advanced photographers. They happen to work for some images, and they aren’t ideal for many others. You shouldn’t waste your time on them.
Instead, compose a photograph for its own merits. Don’t use a thoughtless template, and don’t analyze your photos after taking them to see which gridlines they happen to overlap. It’s a recipe for confirmation bias.
This photo follows the golden ratio. That must be why I like it!
4) Which compositional techniques actually help?
It’s not all bad.
No, none of the grids that you can superimpose on top of your photos actually help. The rule of thirds is not a magic formula, and neither are any of its variations.
But there are still valid ways to improve your photos. Learn about simplicity and visual weight. Pay attention to positive and negative space. Most of all, think about the emotions of your photo, and find good light that matches your mood.
This article isn’t the place to cover each of these individually. Composition is a deep, multi-layered subject. If I had to give just one sentence of advice, it would be this: Form a vision for what you want your photo to say, and then make every single decision in the field — technical choices as well as creative — to turn that vision into reality.
Composition is about giving your photos a structure. It’s the framework for your emotional message. That’s why it’s so important to avoid using preconceived, formulaic compositions. Some of these “rules” might sound intriguing when you first hear them, but that doesn’t mean they hold true in reality.
5) Conclusion
So, what’s up with the rule of thirds?
The answer is that it doesn’t work all that well. Sure, the rule of thirds is a way for beginners to learn that off-center compositions exist. But it is absurd to think that 1/3 markers have some innate power, aside from simply being easy to teach. They don’t.
If this is your primary way to frame photos, you’re missing out on an entire world of other compositions. The rule of thirds will give every single one of your photos a very similar structure, even as your subject changes. That’s not a recipe for thoughtful, personal work.
There are no universal truths — no imaginary lines — that make a photo succeed. There’s just good photography, and good photography doesn’t depend upon what grid you use to compose a photo.
See also:
- Finding Good Light in Landscape Photography (Don’t chase after gridlines when you’re looking for a good photo. Chase after light.)
- Understanding Composition: Beyond the Rule of Thirds (The fundamental elements of composition. They matter way more than the rule of thirds.)
Bad examples… I think you havent touched the main reasoning over the rule of thirds. In fact I havent seen any guide on the internet that would explain it in the proper way. Shame.
Many still think that the rule of thirds is the easiest rule of composition, while in fact they get it wrong from the beginning and later on they start to see that it doesnt work the way it should and they start to doubt it, later on articles like these show up where people brag “that the rules are made to be broken” etc. While they havent understood them in the first place…
The best examples of the rule of thirds are actually the art paintings, for example this one en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ambers.jpg
In this painting the rule of thirds is very easy to spot. Actually it is far more easier to use this rule when you paint, because you create the scene by yourself, while in photography it is hard to get it right because the picture unfolds before you.. So look at the painting, first thing you notice are the ships, they are placed on the thirds.. But there is just one thing that puts this painting aside from most of the pictures that the rule of thirds is used in. Its the depth of this painting. We can clearly say that the ship on the right side is closer to us, then the ship on the left side. This was intention of the artist. He used the rule of thirds to create the depth to his painting… now this is the crucial point of this rule – the rule of thirds is used to create the depth to the picture. Now in the internet, 99proc. examples and guides on rule of thirds do not mention this, instead they take a bad example of one point of interest placed on a third of a image and represent it as the correct idea on rules of thirds. What a hoax…. Further on, some photographers start to notice that this understanding of rule of thirds usually do not work that well and they start to write these articles in the lines of “rules are made o be broken”, “photographer needs to learn the rule to break it correctly” and so on… :D
in fact, it is pretty hard to use rule in the real life photography, because you need to spot at least 2 different points of interest, that are further away from one another and frame it in a way which would lead the viewers eye towards the center of the image. this way you will create the depth to your image.
Also, the ability to control your aperture and decrease or increase depth of field comes in handy using this rule.
The right light, which would create the illusion of depth also is very important, especially in a landscape photography, because with closed aperture, the field of view is very wide and there fore it looks “flat” everything is in the same plane, in other words every part of the image is equally sharp so it is hard to distinguish which object is more important. In portraits, crowds or photographing closer objects as a whole this can be fixed controlling the wider aperture, while for landscape it is usually best to close down the aperture, so only the light and rule of thirds can be used to create the depth…
So, in conclusion, the concept of rule of thirds is misunderstood by many. Further more this false understanding is spread across the whole internet and many photography books. For some reason no one has noticed how rule of thirds work in the 3D scenery rather then on a 2D paper or screen monitor. This rule is far more complex to correctly establish it on the real life scenes then it is taught by many.
Going further, it is not the point of interest placement on the thirds, it is the distance between each third that matters, the viewer must understand that the points of interest are further away from each other, that is how the depth works and how this rule is intended to be used.
About the examples used in this article. Only one picture resembles some what close to correct usages of the rule of thirds and that is the picture of the waterfall. The left third is the dark green tree which is closer to the viewer and it leads the eyes towards the waterfall which is further way to the center of the frame.
Now the black and white image of a coast with a cliffs put on the thirds, this image works not because of rule of thirds but the negative space rule. In short, the cliffs placed on the upper corner balances out the whole negative space in the image. It is a very good negative space example, you will find something like this is many photography books.
First four images only works because of the strong lines that leads the eye through the image, notice how those lines create the depth to the images, because they lead from the corner, which is understood by a viewer as the closest region of the picture, towards the center which is understood as the furthest region of the image, the same with our field of view – when we look at something we understand the corners of our eyes always show us the closest objects, while the center the further objects.. Now the yellow forest image also has a rule of thirds involved, the right side trees are placed on third they are closer to the camera and from there on the eyes of the viewer goes towards the further away trees and the sun.
The last two pictures: coastline with a cliff – that is not the golden ratio, sure u can apply that template over almost everything, but that clearly doesnt mean that every time you crop your picture a little you have done a golden ration image… Hell no.. First of all in this image there is only one point of interest, that is again, the cliff that is placed on the furthest third of the image. Now the composition like this would have worked very well if there were some sort of point of interest on the closer thirds, so our eyes would be moved towards the upper part of the image. But now it is empty and very disturbing at that, all those rocks are very even they create some sort of pattern effect. Also the water create patter effect so we have these two different areas colliding it is very messy environment. the skies are too simple for this scenery. It needs a very cruel looking sky that would completely create this unknown world kind of scenery, or a long exposure that would reduce pattern look of a water and a better framing to use it better. From 0 to 10 i would rate this image somewhere at ~6 because it is very simple, the only worth to mention factors of this image – photographer choose the right timing, good exposure and good processing its either havent been edited, which means there were no reason for it or it was edited without making it look overdone.
The last picture is pretty good :) The composition here is pretty though put I can clearly see that the photographer knew what he was doing, probably scouting the area before going there for this particular shot. the picture might look simple but there is a lot going on. For example the patterns the grass on the first plane and the forest on the mountains further away they are separated by the clear lines. There is this little green forest line on the left that disturbs the viewer a little if only the picture was taken from slightly lower angle, although there probably wasnt any options to do that. the main subject is dead center and on top of that the background has another far more bigger point of view. The timing is spot on, the different illumination of the objects… Very good indeed.
Thank you for the detailed comment! I can see where you are coming from. The painting you linked to is certainly a wonderful demonstration of a beautiful composition, and it definitely does follow close to the rule of thirds. However, I am inclined to say that the reason it is such an excellent painting, and why the composition is successful, is not because of the rule of thirds — and is, instead, to the strong use of positive and negative space, as well as balance. The work also has a strong circular structure that gives it a good “backbone” and reason to exist.
Perhaps that is where the rule of thirds can be helpful — it does give your photo an inherent structure in certain cases, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the tic-tac-toe shape as a way to build a composition. But as a recommended structure for photographers, I fail to see a logical reason why the 1/3 lines themselves have an innate power, rather than (for example) the 1/4 lines, or something similar. Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion, and I think yours comes from a well-thought-out point of view :)
then the ship…?
more easier…? Is English a forgotten language?
Snob much?
Revista muy didáctica. Felicitaciones amigos y éxitos. Saludos.