Rules of Thirds....

[AMaginations]

...does this image define the rule of thirds or break it?

model: Carla M.

[jford]

Seems to me it breaks the rule. The body does not fall on the "third" line, but to the left of it. Worse, the "shell bra" hands are about the middle of the image. It is true that the waves in back fall at about the vertical third from the top, and the shoreline/beach is roughly a third from the bottom, but since those are secondary elements, it serves to somewhat detract from the image, rather than strengthen it, IMO.

OTOH, if you're asking whether the image works, I think it does and I'm not convinced that strictly obeying the rule would make it work better. The model's vision - at the rocks - "pulls" her more into the frame. I don't like all of the negative space to the right of the model - but I think eliminating ALL of it would be good, either. Maybe reducing some of it, but I'm not sure.

[ARTFORMS]

Follow the rule of thirds? Probably not, but it would make a cool looking post card I think. Plenty of room to the right to add some type. "Welcome to Daytona" or something along that line. I'm also wondering what she is going to do with those shells if she decides that she wants to pick up one of those rocks that she is looking at. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]



Jim

[edrem3]

I'd have to say it kinda breaks it. Even though she is off to the one third, by having the model looking at the rocks in the middle, it stops my eye from ever looking into the right side of the picture. This may be good to add some graphics, but what if you're not lookng to add them??? If this picture was to stand alone as it is, I don't think it works so well. However, if this were shot vertically with the right side cropped out, then it works very well.

[epeters]

The rule of thirds is broken; two clam shells and four rocks! Serially, it's not a rule, just a suggestion, or put another way "rules are made to be broken". As noted technically the rules are broken, so you have done good. Looking forward to more vioations.

[ECDesign]

Well I am new to photgraphy. But not new to division. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] My understanding is that one focal point may be displayed to apply the "spirit" of the "rule" Hence one breast/shell does fall on the the cross hairs on one of the third quadrtants applied to the "rule". Where is it stated in the "rule that the ENTIRE subject MUST fall to the left or right? .. So cut the photgrapher some slack ;-) ... both Penn & Avdeon would have [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ECDesign]

Sound to me that we are being 100% text book oriented. With this picture, the eyes speak volumes. So if we are going to say that an image does or does not work shouldn't also define what the "purpose" of the image? If this photo were to be used in a commercial print campaign for eye wear it would work no?

Context is everything no. We have to remember that the "consumer" or client has the final say as to whether an image is effective. As an artist/photogtapher you folks will always argue [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] such is the nature of the "artist"

[gregkdavis]

Yes, the focus of the subject is on one third of the image space.
You can have the rule of thirds and simply divide the image into three
horizontal lines.

You don't have to just have horizontal and vertial lines.

Gotta know how to abuse those rules and still stay within them.

You did it.

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I look at this image and say " F$@K RULES!" [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I doubt highly that the average (or even the professional) person looking at this picture is wondering about any rules, let alone about the specific Thirds rules... I like the photo... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]