Long before I gained any experience in a
Camera Club, I suppose! had worked out the Rule of Thirds for myself,
though! didn't know it was a rule, nor that Renaissance painters had got
there ahead of me....
For the benefit of any others in the
same position, the Rule of
Thirds I am talking about is that one that says "Divide the image
evenly into three, vertically and horizontally, and place the key parts of
the image where the imaginary dividing lines cross."
It works, no doubt about that- most of
the time, anyway. But, while I was reading about it (in "Digital
Photography Answers! Certified Tech Support" if you
must know)! suddenly asked myself "Why?"
This authority, though
invaluable in the advice it does offer, was
silent on my particular point. So, in the bath, I started
wondering...
Query
by
lan Philip of Kirkintilloch CC
Now, much earlier in my career, I did a
course on psychology, where one
of the key points driven home in the first lecture was: Never assume other
peoples' brains work the same way as your own. Have you ever watched two
people in a train, both doing the same cryptic crossword? It is pretty
obvious that, though they arrive at
the same answers, they do so by different routes. So what I am suggesting
is entirely subjective, with no proper evidence - but I'd be interested to
see if anyone thinks there's anything in it.
I start from the point that we are all
animals, pre-programmed to hunt and to be hunted. To any animal, something
glimpsed in the corner of an eye may mean danger, or may mean something to
eat. To find out which is which, we immediately look straight at it. So,
the "danger zones" are the edges of our vision, and the exact
centre. Now, if we compose our image according to the Rule of Thirds, we
neatly miss all these danger zones. The key parts will fall comfortably
away from the edges, and away from the centre. So, it will be a
non-threatening image, instinctively satisfying, that we can hang on the
wall, look at every time we pass, and feel happy with.I said the Rule of
Thirds works most of the time.., when does it go wrong? In the context of
a Club competition, a succession of "Rule of Thirds" pictures
produces a rather bland effect. Could this be simply because the viewing
conditions are so different? Instead of a single image which we can dwell
on, in a competition (or, to a lesser extent, a photographic exhibition)
we get dozens of them, and limited time to look at them. Once you spot
what is happening, you begin to long for something different. That's how I
react, anyway. Suddenly, the picture that breaks the rules becomes that
bit more attractive.
Could my theory be put to the test?-
Instead of carefully cloning out the "distractions" round the
edge, perhaps we could try putting them in, to add to the menacing effect
of a "haunted ruin" type picture. And when the Judge awards us
null points, we will console ourselves that our picture has, in fact,
succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. We have aroused that ancestral
caveman, deep in the Judge's subconscious, whose shout of "Run for
it!" has called the bluff of centuries of so-called civilised
behaviour...
Or am I being altogether too fanciful?