Thursday, 17 November 2011

Is a third enough?

One of the things that has become increasingly apparent to me is that I mercilessly abuse the rule of thirds in composing my images. There was a time when I'd think (yes, actually pause and consider) the composition of a picture, deliberately looking at it for the point of interest, lead lines etc. Now *most of the time* it just comes together in my head, and, with the exception of symmetrical objects, I automatically compose on thirds.

While we were away, one of the guys was deliberately taking pictures at a 30 degree(ish) angle in order to break out of the classic composition boredom he'd developed. I did try that at one time, and might be tempted to try it again, if I could find a decent way of presenting images so created. I've wondered about how that might be done, practically speaking: maybe rotate the image in software on a transparent background, so that when published to the web, it appeared rotated on the page without a larger rectangular border irregularly displaced around it. Obviously it's a complete non-issue if you print images, although they do usually look a little odd in the hand or album.

So does it get any better than 'rule of thirds'?

I'd love to find something that was different and worked at least as well. Occasionally I'll just see a shot come together on the screen of my camera, but those are freaks of composition, rather than a development from solid technique. I guess for now, one or two thirds will have to be enough.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Play nice - I will delete anything I don't want associated with this blog and I will delete anonymous comments.