Rule of Thirds with Wildlife...

I'm extremely eager to learn and will posting some images for critique shortly.. I know, understand, follow and often break the Rule of Thirds.

I notice that in many of the images posted on this forum, to which responses are overwhelmingly positive, the Rule of Thirds seems to be very loosely applied.

When capturing images of birds, large or small, I try to have the eye on one of the Rule of Thirds lines, and the body on another. I also strive to always have the feet (or their apparent location) included in the frame; leave room for a neck to extend and not end up outside the frame (for long necked wading birds, etc) and to always leave room in the frame for the subject to look or move into..

But sometimes, with a tight composition, this isn't really possible.

So in order of preference, from a compositional perspective, what are the primary guidelines?? And, what should I "aim" for as the most important part to NOT bullseye? The eye? The body? The feet?

What looks good!

It really depends on the situation. How much negative space is there, how large in the frame is the subject, is the composition Horizontal or Vertical, what is the background like and are you telling a story or trying to make a point?

These are just a few compositional elements that effect how I decide to use or abuse the "Rule of Thirds".

Looking at images, reading critiques and asking questions about the images you see, will help you shape the way you use or abuse the "Rule of Thirds".

James

Understood... it's a pretty loose guide for composition.

I am going to offer a few images of mine, that prompted the question, and see where it takes me..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MichaelM

Understood... it's a pretty loose guide for composition.

I am going to offer a few images of mine, that prompted the question, and see where it takes me..

---

Perfect!

James

And welcome to BPN, Michael!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julie Kenward

And welcome to BPN, Michael!

---

Thank you Julie!!

Once I asked somebody what they thought about one of my photographs....and he responded: "wow...I love this".....and when I asked him why he said: "great composition, you placed the animal very well accordingly to the rule of 3rds". So did he loved it because of this rule? Or did he love it because my composition resulted in an emotional response ("wow...I love this")?

IMO you should make a composition because it works best for you, because it adds to the atmosphere, creates a certain mood, ect ect....and not because it fits some rule. And sometimes this results in something like the rule of 3rds, and it is completely different.

Don't get me wrong....I often find myself making compositions that fit this rule....so it does seem to work somehow, but I don't think about this rule at all. I just search in my viewfinder until I get the right feeling....good luck and have fun!

Big welcome, Michael.
It boils down to using your eye to find a pleasing composition. your eye can be trained, of course.
Here's a link that will take you many articles on composition. Read them and practice:

http://birdphotographers.net/forums/...ad.php?t=13407

Great points Jasper and do agree with you .... but lots of the good ones seem to have the rule of thirds prevalent !!!

My contribution to the subject:
There are other compositional ideas, such as radial, diagonal, and symmetry, but I think the rule of thirds has something to do the "golden ratio " i.e. roughly 5/3, or 1.618 that has been predominant in Art since this 1500s. Of course the rule of thirds is not exactly based on the "golden ratio" but it may be close enough. I think there are psychological reasons why particular arrangements of structural composition are more
pleasing, and it is more of less universal. Points of interest and how the viewer naturally interacts with them is probably what is most important.
The most obvious application of the rule of thirds is landscapes, basically land and sky, or sea and sky. If the scene is divided in half, for example, there is no primary interest , and the two may very well compete for the viewers attention. If 2/3 was sky, the viewer would be more interested in the sky: the clouds, the sun, etc. Conversely 2/3 land or sea would draw the viewers attention there.
It should be the goal of the photographer to keep various compositional ideas in mind, and it is one thing that differentiates snapshots from photographs that have a more universal appeal. The photographer may really like an image for a number of personal reasons, like he was there and understood the context, but the photograph in itself must convey enough to be understood or appreciated by others. It is my opinion that searching
through the viewfinder to find an image that looks right may not be enough. Keeping various compositional frameworks in mind would make it more likely that an image would be appreciated by others as much as by the photographer.
It is not possible to use the rule of thirds for every photograph, but it may be more important in bird photography where sky/sea/land are almost always present. Even if the rule of thirds is not possible there are other geometric arrangements and shapes that deal well with how the viewer sees an image. In great images where it is obvious that the rule of thirds has been broken, even purposely, often other forms of structural composition have taken its place with equally satisfactory results. regards~Bill