I was playing around with HDR imagery during a tv ad shoot and when I ran this picture by a pro photographer, all she kept on saying was "Rule of Thirds", the picture isn't balanced.
She may be right but what if I say yeah the rules are there but could be boring at times, so I decided to break them?
What first strikes you when you look at the picture?
Commenting on this Image is closed.
Creativebits is a blog about creativity, design and Macs. We also have a critique section where you can post your work to get opinions and a forum to discuss any design related topics.
If you need a logo for your company or product you can get it done with us.
In our logo store you can pick from over 28,000 pre-made logos that will be customized to your name for free or you can post a contest for us for just $250 and our designers from all over the world will submit dozens of logo design suggestions to your specific needs.
Can you re-upload the image?
I like the picture very much and I believe it follows very sound design principles.
In fact, I believe you are using 'Rule Of Thirds' in this photo, just probably not in the way the pro photographer is used to using them.
First of all, I believe this 'Rule Of Thirds' is somewhat arbitrary. When do car designers ever invoke this rule? How many times will graphic designers criticize a logo because it is not following this rule? We can look far and wide and we'll see this 'Rule Of Thirds' is a mantra chanted almost exclusively by photographers and some painters yet they never offer an explanation as to why this rule works.
All is design! I do not accept rules of one discipline which cannot be unified with the rules of every design discipline. Because of this, I believe this 'Rule Of Thirds' is simply short-hand for phi, or 0.618, which is near enough to 2/3rds to be useful.
I've overlayed a Fibonacci tile/spiral and a Vesica piscis upon your photograph and I think you'll agree there are very interesting congruences. You may notice the horizon line matches very well with squares 6,7,9 which happens to be 0.618 of square 10. Square 10 demarks the entirety of the surface of the landscape.
Also square 7, if stretched horizontally across the image seems to encompass the tower and buildings. I also see an interesting V shape made by the 45 degree straight lines on the two largest squares which nicely separates the hanger buildings. Well, there is all sorts of interesting things going on, but they all appear to follow or faintly echo Phi.
As you can see, it's a bit hard to communicate Phi. Much easier to say 1/3.
Very well done! I think you're right to doubt your pro-photographers opinion on this one. IMHO, I believe she's used to using this rule on the horizontal axis instead of the vertical, and this photo needs the vertical.
Without my sense of direction, I don't know where I'd be.
My God, don't ya just wish that tan building were more to the left and slightly bigger? Thats all I see really.
Without my sense of direction, I don't know where I'd be.
Two different rules, Cao. The rule of thirds means you break an image down in thirds vertically and horizontally (9 squares) and if you place your points of interest along the grid lines and at the intersection points - you will have a more balanced (and ergo pleasing) image for the viewer. Studies have shown that when someone views an image, their eyes tend to naturally go to the intersection points (of the grid) - not the center or outer edges of an image. That is the (very) basic principle in a nutshell. I believe - but am not positive (because I studied both photography and design and the memory aint what it used to be) - it is mainly a photography rule which is also applied to other 2-dimensional visual arts (that rules out your cars). Next time you're at an exhibition or with a photographer friend, look at their images - you'll see they stick to this rule fairly religiously.
Please note - the ONLY image I can see here in the thread is the ghosted version that Cao posted - which looks a little stretched vertically (on my end). But looking at Cao's post - I can see the reason the photographer harped on that rule is because this particular image is almost perfectly split between 1/2 and 1/3 of the way down by the horizon (5/12ths?) - an uncomfortable break for the viewer. The comparison would be cropping a photo of a person at the knees or elbows. In an image like this you'd want 2/3 of the image to be the land and 1/3 to be the sky (or vice versa). While it is true that it is okay to break the rules once in awhile - you should first understand the rule and then have a very good reason to break it. This image - imho - does not qualify. Fortunately for you, however - it's very easy to make this image comply with the thirds rule - simply crop out some of the sky until it is approximately 1/3 of the image. Hello. Problem solved.
I must go back to my laboratory.
Without my sense of direction, I don't know where I'd be.
The general rule of thumb is that rules are generally to be observed but are also made to be broken (if you know the rules) and the reason you are breaking them is not just to break the rules for breaking the rules' sake (but to show that you understand the rules and to further your appreciation of the rules and their roles). But this is not a hard and fast rule.
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever – Anonymous.
http://theghostwriterinthemachine.blogspot.com
Thanks for all the comments. Appreciated.