Advice on composition: breaking the rule of thirds

[P-A. Fortin]

[First post here. I was not sure if this was the appropriate section or if this post would fit better in the "General Photography Discussion" section. If so, sorry and please move it to the appropriate section!]

Hello there,

I started to get a little more serious into bird photography (and in fact any kind of photography. I really am a beginner here!) about 6 months ago when I got myself a 60D and a 100-400L. In other words: it is quite likely I am going to ask for advice alot here in the next months!

So let's start with a first topic: composition. The first guideline I seem to be reading everywhere regarding composition is the famous "rule of thirds". While its application seems not too hard, there are cases where at this point, I just don't feel it would have been appropriate. Of course, rules are made to be broken, but the question is: how.

Here are 3 images taken among my first pictures that I believe illustrate the most what I am trying to understand here. No post-processing of the images yet.

First image:



This first image was taken in Northwest Florida, on February 27th, around 10h30. Canon 60D, 100-400L @ 300mm, ISO 200, 1/2500, f/8, no flash :eek: (yeah, I got myself a 580 since). a ring-billed gull taken in one of the most foggy days I've ever seen (I am mostly used to snow here up north!). It had just finished swallowing some small crab (no, it was not mad at the sand...).

Since it happened rather fast, I did not take the time to focus using the center AF point and recompose. However thinking about it I am not sure I would have taken it any other way. Moving the bird up into the frame would have added too much sand to the image, and moving it down the frame would have too much open space (in my humble opinion, of course) in the top of the image. The I thought about moving it left onto the "1/3 line", but for a reason I can't pinpoint, it just did not seem correct to me. Yet, the final result does not seem correct to me as well.

What would have been a correct solution to this shot?


Second image:



Same day, same place. Same condition except 1/1000 instead of 1/2500, and 200mm instead of 300mm (I really should have pulled it out to 400mm... Still getting familiar with the gear!). I was using again the center AF point on this first-ever attempt to shoot a bird in flight. Yet again the composition bugs me, mostly because of the wings. I feel that putting any part of the bird onto any "strong point" of the "thirds lines" would have cornered the bird and made the image look rather empty. Yet putting it dead-center makes it kinda look ordinary while I believe that a closer shot on a better day might have been a terrific shot.

Any hint on how I should have composed this one?


Third image:



Different subject, different place. In Quebec City, June 1st, around 08h00. ISO 200, 1/800, f/5.6, 400mm, with the flash. Different situation this time, this is more like a "close-up" shot than the 2 other images. The fact that the bird is looking to the right of the image bugs me a little. Putting the eye on the upper-left strong-point would stick the bird onto the left part of the image while leaving the right part rather empty. Moving it to the right would draw the attention of the viewer out of the image. I have to admit that this one puzzles me the most out of the 3 images.

Keep in mind that I am as much as a beginner as they make it, so any advice will be welcome. However, my main questioning here is about the composition.


Thank you all.

[Desmond Chan]

First image:



What would have been a correct solution to this shot?

A vertical/portrait format. It's under-exposed by the way.

Second image:




Any hint on how I should have composed this one?

Move the focal point to where you want the bird to be in the final image and shoot. Or, crop to re-compose after the fact.

Third image:



The fact that the bird is looking to the right of the image bugs me a little.

Interesting. I wonder why.

Putting the eye on the upper-left strong-point would stick the bird onto the left part of the image while leaving the right part rather empty. Moving it to the right would draw the attention of the viewer out of the image. I have to admit that this one puzzles me the most out of the 3 images.

Leave the eye somewhere near the middle or closer to the right side of the picture (which is what you have here). You don't need a lot of room on the right side; important thing is you want to have more room on the right than on the left.

Welcome aboard, by the way !

[P-A. Fortin]

A vertical/portrait format. It's under-exposed by the way.

You're right. Somehow I only think "vertical picture" when I shoot a woodpecker or birds with similar behavior. It never even crossed my mind for this shot. I'll keep that in mind.

Move the focal point to where you want the bird to be in the final image and shoot. Or, crop to re-compose after the fact.

It was my 2nd shooting with my new gear (my previous camera was a bridge), so I was quite clumsy with the lens. This one happened so fast that I went for "just any shot". These days I am practicing to shoot gulls in flight the parking of a mcdonalds :D Should help improve my skills in this department.

However I am still unsure as of where I would want the bird to be in this specific image. Assuming that I would have had zoomed on the bird properly, I wonder if I should leave room to the right of the wing, which would put the body of the bird quite far to the left, or partially overlap the wing with the free room so that the body is closer to the center of the image.

Interesting. I wonder why.

Leave the eye somewhere near the middle or closer to the right side of the picture (which is what you have here). You don't need a lot of room on the right side; important thing is you want to have more room on the right than on the left.

I guess it is because I was trying too hard to "put the eye on a strong point" and "move the bird away from the center of the image".

In other words, trying to strictly apply rules I read somewhere without thinking because I did not understand the idea behind these rules. Which is something I am trying to avoid doing again in the future, for example by asking questions such as the ones in this thread.

Welcome aboard, by the way !

Thanks. I already enjoy it. Mostly because of helpful comments such as yours.

[Kerry Perkins]

Hello, I must get some administrative issues out of the way before I make any other comments...

Please read and understand the posting rules and guidelines, as well as the member/participant guidelines. You will find them at the top of each forum header and can also follow the link of the guidelines tab at the top of each page. The rule for posting images is one image per post per 48 hours for participants, unless you are posting a suggested improvement of the original image. One post, one image - please! Also, we use our full real names here, so please send a private message to James Shadle and get you user name changed to your full name unless P-A. is your full name.

I am only going to comment on your first image, as that is the only legitimate one in your post.

There isn't much light in this image, in fact not nearly enough! Given the conditions you described I would have been at ISO 400 or beyond just to begin, probably wouldn't have been using such a high shutter speed either to get some more light going. The bird is almost dead center both vertically and horizontally. If you want to keep the landscape aspect, I would suggest cropping from the bottom and from the left, to put the bird closer to the corner.

I look forward to more, but one at a time please!

[P-A. Fortin]

My bad. I made my first post in the "Avian: All about birds" forum. I did read the rules there but somehow missed the similar post for the ETL forum. I was not trying to "bypass" the rule by posting 3 images. I just felt it made more sense since these were 3 examples that I wanted to use on the same topic (composition) rather than making 3 different posts. I have read the forum rules and will make sure I don't slip out of the track again. Thanks for pointing me toward this post.

As of my real name, I did discuss the "case" with James and also with Roman. P-A. is a short for my awfully long first name that I use in my everyday life. I'll copy you the explanation in a pm since I doubt everyone here wants to hear about the origins of my name :)

Thank you also for the comments. I know the image is badly underexposed but it was one of the images for which the correct composition was a mystery to me so I picked this one. I like the fact that you suggested something different than Desmond. I like both ways, but both allow me to see things differently so it kind of opens up alot of ideas for future shots.

Thanks and sorry again for stepping out of bounds regarding the rules. I'll make sure it won't happen again.

Meanwhile, well... if you feel like commenting the #2 image in 48 hours, I'd be more than interested to hear your views on this one

[Kerry Perkins]

P-A, not a big deal eh? I will re-visit the other images, and will set my calendar accordingly.

Can you share with us how you metered these images? The first one is underexposed by almost two full stops.

I am not a huge fan of the "rule of thirds" only because many images just don't fit this model. I believe it was advanced as a way to get people to simply move the main subject away from the center and it is a convenient number to remember. There are many other compositional aids and concepts that work equally well and it is best to learn them all. Having said all that, it is a great place to start you thinking about where to place strong elements in your images. The center seldom works, but does have its uses, however the gull image is not one of them.

[P-A. Fortin]

The metering, to be honest...

I set my camera to Aperture priority, spot metering, focused on the bird and fired without thinking. :eek: No exposure compensation. I have to admit that thinking about it now, I am surprised that it did not produce a better result, even though I acted without thinking/knowing.

That is pretty much all I would do at that time. I've been thinking beyond "point and shoot photography" for less than 6 months, so at the time of this specific shooting, I was pretty much just a rookie with a body/lense combo way too powerful for me. If I recall correctly it was the 2nd time I used my camera at that time. Definitely not an example to follow!

4 months later I am shooting in Manual mode almost 50% of the time and I am wondering about breaking rules of composition. There is still a long way to go but I'm coming along quite well. I did read alot of threads here before joining and I am currently reading Artie's book so.. there is hope!

Now that you have opened the door, what are those other compositional aids you refer to? I remember seeing an article a few days ago here about some kind of spiral but it somehow scared me away

[John Chardine]

P.-A.: There is another way to think about composition in wildlife portraits. In most images there is an implied or obvious direction of movement whether it be to the right or life, up or down. In your first image there isn't much of this but the gull is obviously flying to the right and the jay is looking to the right. Animals usually look where they are going. A pleasing composition will have the bird looking and/or moving into the longer side of the frame, with the shorter side behind it. As far as up and down is concerned, it is generally better to give more room at the top than at the bottom. In cases where the bird is obviously flying down, say to land, it may be better to give a bit more room at the bottom.

I go by the above more than compositional rules, but when I do I often find that the composition is close to what you be achieve with the rule.